4 ms·

"It is exciting to be alive, isn’t it?" It is for those of us who don't rely on the service industry for a living. 10 million jobs lost. A self driving car i

"It is exciting to be alive, isn’t it?" It is for those of us who don't rely on the service industry for a living. 10 million jobs lost. A self driving car is an amazing feat of Human engineering. What would be an even more amazing feat would be what to do with humans thrown under the bus of progress. Capitalism is great for anyone with enough mental agility to stay in the technology power curve, but it's really terrible for everyone else who simply want to live their lives, raise their family and be happy. What are we going to do with all those humans displace by automation?

tommoor 12y ago
Driving won't be the first job to be displaced by technology, other jobs will appear - possibly one's we can't even imagine now.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  This is a cop-out - the entire "people will find other things to do" argument is a total cop-out. Yes, in aggregate, over long timespans (read: multiple generations), people will figure out other things to do. But as we've seen from the automation of manufacturing jobs in the US, a huge number of people haven't retrained, nor have magical jobs "we couldn't even imagine" erupted en masse to absorb a chronically un- or under-employed work force. I submit that the oversimplified notion that people who lose their jobs to technology will be fine and find something else to do is mainly a device to make people like us feel better - it isn't a notion that actually helps the displaced.
  - tommoor 12y ago
    I don't believe it is, history has this repeated this playbook over and over, from horse power, steam power, electric power - labour intensive repetitive works have been slowly replaced by automation for hundreds of years now - driving is just the next in a long list. My personal long-term view (beyond just automated cars) is that we will automate away millions of jobs - but that's fantastic as it probably doesn't make sense for everyone to work anyway, a basic income guarantee can allow people to live lives with much more time for leisure, creativity and enjoyment.
    - potatolicious 12y ago
      > " history has this repeated this playbook over and over, from horse power, steam power, electric power - labour intensive repetitive works have been slowly replaced by automation for hundreds of years now" Yes, and we've never suitably addressed the problem of displaced labor. You're mistaking aggregate, macro-scale changes in the economy for micro-scale effects on people. Bob the factory worker loses his job because of automation, the economy at the same time creates new jobs in other categories. From an aggregate scale the economy is still humming along - a contraction of labor demand on one side is offset by an expansion in labor demand on another side. But what about Bob? Is Bob qualified to take one of these newly created jobs? How will he gain the qualifications to work this new job? Are these new jobs in Bob's geographic area, or does Bob have the financial means to move to new job centers to pursue work? This is the problem - you've mistaken "there are new jobs" for "there are new jobs for the displaced workers". The assumption that there is even much of an intersection between these two things is pure supposition - supposition that gets trotted around a lot because we don't like to think about the notion that maybe Bob - who has 30-40 years left on his lifespan - may simply be chronically unemployed or underemployed for the entire rest of it. In reality there are going to be millions - if not tens of millions - like Bob, who have lost their jobs and are unable to retrain into a field that the economy has created. Others will take those new jobs, but Bob and his cohort are just plain fucked. The invention of new job categories does not remove the reality that Bob, and millions of others like him, are permanently out of work.
    - mrschwabe 12y ago
      Was with you until basic income guarantee. Who guarantees that income and from whom will they take it to guarantee for you? I agree, it doesn't make sense for everyone to 'work' and with any luck the future holds for us more time for leisure, creativity and enjoyment - but when you consider my argument above, perhaps a more sustainable, morale route to achieve such a vision is by means of a healthy, fair and open economy - one that makes it easy for anyone to earn a living by pursuing their own interests, passions or hobbies.
  - divegeek 12y ago
    The problem isn't the change. History has shown time and again that we can deal with that. The problem is the rate of change. The industrial revolution took generations to really complete, and even so it was kind of rough in places. These changes are coming much, much faster. We need to find something between accepting mass poverty and creating a total welfare state which, even if it works economically, will be a disaster for human happiness. People need to feel productive, useful and self-reliant. What that is, I don't know. I'm encouraging my kids to become technocrats, like me.
    - FrankenPC 12y ago
      "I'm encouraging my kids to become technocrats, like me." Same here. My family is covered. But the hard reality of unemployment still bothers me. I feel that if we were TRULY an advanced society, we would have already solved this problem. It's a problem. And problems are solvable. We just have to want to solve it.
  - reboog711 12y ago
    My current career as a computer programmer is not something my parents could have even imagined when I was born, so I'm not really sure if it really takes multiple generations for technology to create new jobs...
    - potatolicious 12y ago
      That's just it, isn't it though? These jobs are still multi-generational. Think about it - if your parents' jobs were permanently eliminated right now, what are the odds that they can successfully shift into programming? Do they have the funds to go back to college? And - apologies for making some assumptions about your parents - how do you think the interview will fare for someone in their 40s or 50s (or 60s?) who just finished learning basic programming and is ready for an entry-level position? Be honest about that one - we work in the same industry - we know exactly how it treats middle-aged people. So yeah, we've created new jobs at the same time others are being eliminated. People are taking these new jobs - but it's a mistake to think that these two groups are largely the same people, they are most emphatically not. So the question is: if your parents' jobs were eliminated permanently, what do they do for the remainder of their lives?
zkanter 12y ago
I'm the author - here's some good reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment
gfodor 12y ago
Cost of education (of the non-university flavor) and access to information is also plummeting in parallel. Also, the means of disseminating information and ideas is far wider than ever before. This, combined with proper economic policies like a basic income, I feel could allow those who lose their jobs due to rapid technological change to develop new, employable skills. But you're right, if everything else stayed the same and just something like autocars happened, there'd be riots.
ahallock 12y ago
Well, what's happened in the past? Many jobs have been displaced. I don't remember any disasters because of it. 10 million jobs won't be lost instantaneously; you're being melodramatic. This will be a gradual process, allowing people to pursue new opportunities.
mrschwabe 12y ago
The promise of capitalism is not to produce more "jobs". It is to create prosperity. Prosperity can be achieved by innovation, and innovation is often the result of competition. What are we going to do with all those humans displace by automation? If one innovation was to disrupt a segment of the service industry which affects 10 million jobs - those affected have every opportunity available to create new innovations of their own, or pivot their careers to a more prosperous area of the economy - of which there would be many, in a true free-market capitalist economy.

tommoor 12y ago

Driving won't be the first job to be displaced by technology, other jobs will appear - possibly one's we can't even imagine now.

potatolicious 12y ago
This is a cop-out - the entire "people will find other things to do" argument is a total cop-out. Yes, in aggregate, over long timespans (read: multiple generations), people will figure out other things to do. But as we've seen from the automation of manufacturing jobs in the US, a huge number of people haven't retrained, nor have magical jobs "we couldn't even imagine" erupted en masse to absorb a chronically un- or under-employed work force. I submit that the oversimplified notion that people who lose their jobs to technology will be fine and find something else to do is mainly a device to make people like us feel better - it isn't a notion that actually helps the displaced.
- tommoor 12y ago
  I don't believe it is, history has this repeated this playbook over and over, from horse power, steam power, electric power - labour intensive repetitive works have been slowly replaced by automation for hundreds of years now - driving is just the next in a long list. My personal long-term view (beyond just automated cars) is that we will automate away millions of jobs - but that's fantastic as it probably doesn't make sense for everyone to work anyway, a basic income guarantee can allow people to live lives with much more time for leisure, creativity and enjoyment.
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    > " history has this repeated this playbook over and over, from horse power, steam power, electric power - labour intensive repetitive works have been slowly replaced by automation for hundreds of years now" Yes, and we've never suitably addressed the problem of displaced labor. You're mistaking aggregate, macro-scale changes in the economy for micro-scale effects on people. Bob the factory worker loses his job because of automation, the economy at the same time creates new jobs in other categories. From an aggregate scale the economy is still humming along - a contraction of labor demand on one side is offset by an expansion in labor demand on another side. But what about Bob? Is Bob qualified to take one of these newly created jobs? How will he gain the qualifications to work this new job? Are these new jobs in Bob's geographic area, or does Bob have the financial means to move to new job centers to pursue work? This is the problem - you've mistaken "there are new jobs" for "there are new jobs for the displaced workers". The assumption that there is even much of an intersection between these two things is pure supposition - supposition that gets trotted around a lot because we don't like to think about the notion that maybe Bob - who has 30-40 years left on his lifespan - may simply be chronically unemployed or underemployed for the entire rest of it. In reality there are going to be millions - if not tens of millions - like Bob, who have lost their jobs and are unable to retrain into a field that the economy has created. Others will take those new jobs, but Bob and his cohort are just plain fucked. The invention of new job categories does not remove the reality that Bob, and millions of others like him, are permanently out of work.
  - mrschwabe 12y ago
    Was with you until basic income guarantee. Who guarantees that income and from whom will they take it to guarantee for you? I agree, it doesn't make sense for everyone to 'work' and with any luck the future holds for us more time for leisure, creativity and enjoyment - but when you consider my argument above, perhaps a more sustainable, morale route to achieve such a vision is by means of a healthy, fair and open economy - one that makes it easy for anyone to earn a living by pursuing their own interests, passions or hobbies.
- divegeek 12y ago
  The problem isn't the change. History has shown time and again that we can deal with that. The problem is the rate of change. The industrial revolution took generations to really complete, and even so it was kind of rough in places. These changes are coming much, much faster. We need to find something between accepting mass poverty and creating a total welfare state which, even if it works economically, will be a disaster for human happiness. People need to feel productive, useful and self-reliant. What that is, I don't know. I'm encouraging my kids to become technocrats, like me.
  - FrankenPC 12y ago
    "I'm encouraging my kids to become technocrats, like me." Same here. My family is covered. But the hard reality of unemployment still bothers me. I feel that if we were TRULY an advanced society, we would have already solved this problem. It's a problem. And problems are solvable. We just have to want to solve it.
- reboog711 12y ago
  My current career as a computer programmer is not something my parents could have even imagined when I was born, so I'm not really sure if it really takes multiple generations for technology to create new jobs...
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    That's just it, isn't it though? These jobs are still multi-generational. Think about it - if your parents' jobs were permanently eliminated right now, what are the odds that they can successfully shift into programming? Do they have the funds to go back to college? And - apologies for making some assumptions about your parents - how do you think the interview will fare for someone in their 40s or 50s (or 60s?) who just finished learning basic programming and is ready for an entry-level position? Be honest about that one - we work in the same industry - we know exactly how it treats middle-aged people. So yeah, we've created new jobs at the same time others are being eliminated. People are taking these new jobs - but it's a mistake to think that these two groups are largely the same people, they are most emphatically not. So the question is: if your parents' jobs were eliminated permanently, what do they do for the remainder of their lives?

zkanter 12y ago

I'm the author - here's some good reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment

gfodor 12y ago

Cost of education (of the non-university flavor) and access to information is also plummeting in parallel. Also, the means of disseminating information and ideas is far wider than ever before. This, combined with proper economic policies like a basic income, I feel could allow those who lose their jobs due to rapid technological change to develop new, employable skills. But you're right, if everything else stayed the same and just something like autocars happened, there'd be riots.

ahallock 12y ago

Well, what's happened in the past? Many jobs have been displaced. I don't remember any disasters because of it. 10 million jobs won't be lost instantaneously; you're being melodramatic. This will be a gradual process, allowing people to pursue new opportunities.

mrschwabe 12y ago

The promise of capitalism is not to produce more "jobs". It is to create prosperity. Prosperity can be achieved by innovation, and innovation is often the result of competition. What are we going to do with all those humans displace by automation? If one innovation was to disrupt a segment of the service industry which affects 10 million jobs - those affected have every opportunity available to create new innovations of their own, or pivot their careers to a more prosperous area of the economy - of which there would be many, in a true free-market capitalist economy.