6 ms·

I really can't imagine 100% unemployment, because I think there will always be a demand for actual human people in some roles: hairdresser, waiter, singer, pros

by patmcc 12y ago

I really can't imagine 100% unemployment, because I think there will always be a demand for actual human people in some roles: hairdresser, waiter, singer, prostitute, masseuse, athlete, actor, croupier, etc. Will robots/AI be good enough to do all these jobs? Sure, they might even be now. But as long as some people want to be sung to / served by / entertained by an actual flesh-and-blood human, there will still be employment in those sectors. In fact I wouldn't be surprised in the far future if those service positions were the most valuable in society, since that's where real scarcity will be.

pornel 12y ago
Maybe some of these jobs won't be replaced with a robot, but will become completely irrelevant/unnecessary? Instead of having a robot hairdresser, what if cutting hair wasn't even a thing? e.g. maybe we'll all get holo-wigs that let us change hairstyles as easily as profile pictures. Similarly we don't talk to switchboard operators to enter URL in the browser addressbar. We've got AI that does it better and doesn't judge :)
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Exactly. And yes, in principle we could keep inventing completely random and absurd jobs just to keep people busy earning for living - but then, what's the point? Nowdays we have to work because resources are scarce. If we reach the point of post-scarcity, forcing people to slave away their lives for food and shelter seems just evil.
  - patmcc 12y ago
    I wasn't suggesting we invent jobs to keep people busy - I think we should strive towards employment being required for no one. Once food and material goods are post-scarcity, absolutely they should be provided to all. But as long as anything is scarce (and experiences are, broadly, and I don't think there's any way around that), we'll have something like "employment". It might start at "I'll sing you a song if you massage my back" barter-style, but that evolves into currency eventually.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Ok, maybe you weren't suggesting that but I see this tossed around quite often - that people will always find new jobs and therefore we can keep requiring everyone to work for sustenance. And we're inventing many bullshit jobs right now - not to look too far, half of the work done in web development is probably contributing to nothing else than zero-sum games of companies trying to out-advertise one another. I agree - as long as resources required for basic survival are scarce, there will be employment. But the point is, we shouldn't try to maintain the status quo as long as possible; we should jump to letting people live without a job the first moment this becomes feasible.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > But as long as anything is scarce (and experiences are, broadly, and I don't think there's any way around that), we'll have something like "employment". If labor isn't scarce (e.g., if there are easy substitutes that provide the utility provided by labor), then there's no real basis for employment even if there is scarcity in goods. Scarcity guarantees that people will have an incentive to sacrifice to get scarce goods, but if labor isn't scarce, then sacrificing time in the form of labor isn't likely to be an option to do that.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
So the question is - do we really want to keep our market economy and see if it will work out if entire population of the planet works as prostitutes?
guelo 12y ago
hairdresser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccP-ayh6Wlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccP-ayh6Wlc waiter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBuIhH9aaSA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBuIhH9aaSA singer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kM3n64WJmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kM3n64WJmo prostitute: soon (fleshlight+occulus) masseuse: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004BXJZB2/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B004BXJZB2&linkCode=as2&tag=massagechair0e-20&linkId=LNMTWFEBAAH23CP7 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004BXJZB2/ref=as_li_tl?ie=... athlete: http://robogames.net/index.php http://robogames.net/index.php actor: there are tons of CGI actors in movies croupier: slot machines, video poker, etc
- patmcc 12y ago
  My point wasn't that elements of those jobs couldn't be done (or even done better, by some measures) by machines, but that there exist people with a strong preference to humans in those jobs. Take croupiers; we have very good video poker, automated roulette tables, virtual blackjack, but still lots of humans dealing out cards (especially in the high roller rooms). I was at a casino in Las Vegas two weeks ago; the robot roulette gave strictly better payouts (36 to 1) than the human-run table (35 to 1) for single number bets, but there were still people at the tables.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    There no doubt will always be demand for something to be done by humans, just because we're kind of a whimsy species. But I see no way for such jobs to become the basis of the economy. We need to end the concept that everyone has to work for a living. Otherwise it's not the 100% automation that will kill us, it's the 50% automation, i.e. half of the population not being able to earn their bread.
chongli 12y ago
Sure and there will always be some demand for horses for various purposes but the total demand for horse labour is way below its peak in 1915. Do you foresee any future technology which might reinvigorate the demand for horses?
- patmcc 12y ago
  Increased human unemployment might, actually. If both cost and time weren't huge barriers, I expect more people would ride. But I think the future for humans looks somewhat similar to that of horses today; a small number of us will still be "working", but more because of individual preferences than any kind of need.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    It's not about cost and time; horse maintenance is more labour intensive, and then there's a problem of waste. Actually shortly before the first automobile was constructed, London authorities were worried that if the demand for horses keeps increasing, the city will literally be drowned in manure.

by patmcc 12y ago

pornel 12y ago

Maybe some of these jobs won't be replaced with a robot, but will become completely irrelevant/unnecessary? Instead of having a robot hairdresser, what if cutting hair wasn't even a thing? e.g. maybe we'll all get holo-wigs that let us change hairstyles as easily as profile pictures. Similarly we don't talk to switchboard operators to enter URL in the browser addressbar. We've got AI that does it better and doesn't judge :)

TeMPOraL 12y ago
Exactly. And yes, in principle we could keep inventing completely random and absurd jobs just to keep people busy earning for living - but then, what's the point? Nowdays we have to work because resources are scarce. If we reach the point of post-scarcity, forcing people to slave away their lives for food and shelter seems just evil.
- patmcc 12y ago
  I wasn't suggesting we invent jobs to keep people busy - I think we should strive towards employment being required for no one. Once food and material goods are post-scarcity, absolutely they should be provided to all. But as long as anything is scarce (and experiences are, broadly, and I don't think there's any way around that), we'll have something like "employment". It might start at "I'll sing you a song if you massage my back" barter-style, but that evolves into currency eventually.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Ok, maybe you weren't suggesting that but I see this tossed around quite often - that people will always find new jobs and therefore we can keep requiring everyone to work for sustenance. And we're inventing many bullshit jobs right now - not to look too far, half of the work done in web development is probably contributing to nothing else than zero-sum games of companies trying to out-advertise one another. I agree - as long as resources required for basic survival are scarce, there will be employment. But the point is, we shouldn't try to maintain the status quo as long as possible; we should jump to letting people live without a job the first moment this becomes feasible.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > But as long as anything is scarce (and experiences are, broadly, and I don't think there's any way around that), we'll have something like "employment". If labor isn't scarce (e.g., if there are easy substitutes that provide the utility provided by labor), then there's no real basis for employment even if there is scarcity in goods. Scarcity guarantees that people will have an incentive to sacrifice to get scarce goods, but if labor isn't scarce, then sacrificing time in the form of labor isn't likely to be an option to do that.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

So the question is - do we really want to keep our market economy and see if it will work out if entire population of the planet works as prostitutes?

guelo 12y ago

hairdresser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccP-ayh6Wlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccP-ayh6Wlc waiter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBuIhH9aaSA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBuIhH9aaSA singer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kM3n64WJmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kM3n64WJmo prostitute: soon (fleshlight+occulus) masseuse: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004BXJZB2/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B004BXJZB2&linkCode=as2&tag=massagechair0e-20&linkId=LNMTWFEBAAH23CP7 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004BXJZB2/ref=as_li_tl?ie=... athlete: http://robogames.net/index.php http://robogames.net/index.php actor: there are tons of CGI actors in movies croupier: slot machines, video poker, etc

patmcc 12y ago
My point wasn't that elements of those jobs couldn't be done (or even done better, by some measures) by machines, but that there exist people with a strong preference to humans in those jobs. Take croupiers; we have very good video poker, automated roulette tables, virtual blackjack, but still lots of humans dealing out cards (especially in the high roller rooms). I was at a casino in Las Vegas two weeks ago; the robot roulette gave strictly better payouts (36 to 1) than the human-run table (35 to 1) for single number bets, but there were still people at the tables.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  There no doubt will always be demand for something to be done by humans, just because we're kind of a whimsy species. But I see no way for such jobs to become the basis of the economy. We need to end the concept that everyone has to work for a living. Otherwise it's not the 100% automation that will kill us, it's the 50% automation, i.e. half of the population not being able to earn their bread.

chongli 12y ago

Sure and there will always be some demand for horses for various purposes but the total demand for horse labour is way below its peak in 1915. Do you foresee any future technology which might reinvigorate the demand for horses?

patmcc 12y ago
Increased human unemployment might, actually. If both cost and time weren't huge barriers, I expect more people would ride. But I think the future for humans looks somewhat similar to that of horses today; a small number of us will still be "working", but more because of individual preferences than any kind of need.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  It's not about cost and time; horse maintenance is more labour intensive, and then there's a problem of waste. Actually shortly before the first automobile was constructed, London authorities were worried that if the demand for horses keeps increasing, the city will literally be drowned in manure.