Why Automation Won't Displace Human Workers (diginomica.com) 540
"There was never a job opening for a drone pilot until there was something to fly," writes the founder of market research firm Beagle Research Group, arguing that automation won't inevitably lead society to a universal basic income "free lunch" because new jobs arise when "new capabilities, technical and otherwise, innovate them into existence."
Heck, computer programmers had no existence until computers. At one point a computer was just someone who was very good at math performing calculations all day...it took a year to check all of the calculations needed to produce the atomic bomb and that work was all done by humans. Imagine how history might be different if even one of them had a pocket calculator. You get the idea. New technology inspires new jobs.
He also argues that historically automation eliminates jobs that were "dull, dirty, and dangerous," and that automation also ends up performing previously-nonexistent jobs -- or work that was forced onto customers in self-service scenarios.
He also argues that historically automation eliminates jobs that were "dull, dirty, and dangerous," and that automation also ends up performing previously-nonexistent jobs -- or work that was forced onto customers in self-service scenarios.
Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally an article that goes against the nonstop doom and gloom tone of seemingly every single report on automation.
Its as if no one had learned anything from the past revolutions and evolutions in the industry in general.
Apparently people still think its a good idea to just linearly extrapolate from out current postion into the future without considering that maybe technology evolves into new branches, not just faster, harder, better.
No, I do not believe that every single person who will loose their jobs to robots will (immediately) find a new, equal or better job. But predicting that we will be seeing 95% unemployment in the future is just plain silly.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So very little self-awareness here
Re: Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
We are on the cusp of general purpose automation. It won't work this way again.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends. There is still the element of creativity. Until the AI is so advanced that it can say "You know now that I have T if just did U and filled in V blank I could do Z!" That does not have to be some grand thing either it can be the small stuff and still be valuable.
Re: Finally (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't depend at all. (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly this, and even that's only applicable if AI stalls where it is, which is a ridiculously unlikely assumption to make.
They'll find undertakings that suit them (as will everyone else.) They won't find jobs. No one will be paying anyone for anything; because "pay" will be an obsolete model. There's no reason to have a medium of exchange that discriminates between one person doing something completely optional, and another doing something completely optional.
There's only one class of service (or "service") humans can provide that automation is unable to eventually cover, and that is interaction with other humans. Bartending, maid/butler, sex, sports, appreciation -- these kinds of things. Having said that, if people want those most of the things those interactions accomplish done well, then they will still turn to automation, with at least the initial exception of sex for procreative purposes (but that's not to say that couldn't succumb as well.)
I don't doubt for a moment that at least for a while, it will be a mark of some kind of status to have a human servant. But in a society where no one has to work, I also don't doubt for a moment that finding mentally healthy humans who want to serve in such fashions will be quite difficult.
[glances at Roomba cruising around in the hall] Actually, service is coming back. It is automated service though, and in its ultimate form, won't involve condemning people to working. The opposite: it will free them.
What I do with my mind that is enjoyable for me, I already do for free (because I can... when others can, I am certain they will as well.)
OTOH, what I do that I have to: I clean the catbox, mow the lawn, shop for food, wash the windows, dust, wash the dishes, cook, make the bed, wash the clothes, bedding, curtains, towels and so on, empty the Roomba, take out the trash, keep the house painted and otherwise maintained, gutters clear, deck stained and so on for a huge long list of "has to be done simply to maintain the status quo."
There isn't even one thing in that list that I want to do, and as each one falls to automation, I will be smiling ear-to-ear.
Non-conscious, sophisticated automation will free us. Conscious AI (which is to say, actual, true Scotsman AI) will almost certainly not, in and of itself; although I have little doubt that conscious AI will help us out quite a bit with non-conscious automation design.
Just as those of us who could afford them almost entirely stopped sweeping when vacuum cleaners became a thing; and those of us who have circumstances where Roombas can work and have put one into play have stopped vacuuming... we'll stop emptying the Roomba when it can empty itself. That goes for everything we don't actually want to do. the writing's on the wall. All we have to do is read it.
The problem isn't the non-working society I describe above. The problem -- and it will be a huge problem -- will be the transition from the working society we have now to a non-working society. UBI is the key to getting that accomplished with the least blood on the floor. Probably literally.
Anyone who argues that jobs will remain a dependable social construct in the face of our present technological path is in error. Barring serious disaster - comet, climate, war, major vulcanism, significant solar misbehavior, etc. - there's just no way we aren't headed for a jobless society.
Re: Doesn't depend at all. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Cat puke and the like (Score:3)
Sure they are. They're also the perfect example of "more there than most other things."
As soon as anyone starts thinking "the way it is" is definitive of "the way it will be", they've fallen victim to a major cognitive error. Technological progress is non-linear, and there's not even a hint of it slowing down. Quite the opposite.
Cleaning up cat puke is just another item on my very long list of have-tos that will go away as soon as it can go away.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, creative, knowledgeable and smart people will find jobs in post-automation world. [implied: but the rest won't]
They'll find undertakings that suit them (as will everyone else.) They won't find jobs.
"Go away! Batin'!" - Frito Esq. Idiocracy
Joking aside, I think this anon coward hit the nail on the head:
https://it.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
The good but uncreative people will become self destructive. The sociopaths, bereft of accepted means to prove their superiority, will turn to unacceptable means.
Re: Finally (Score:4, Informative)
Fucking rubbish. The UK abolished slavery before you colonials had that nasty North v South spat. Domestic servants only really declined in number when WW1 started.
That's a half a century after.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Finally (Score:3)
Well ... If these jobs were so horrible and demeaning then why are people taking them?
You are taking away their livelihood otherwise they would not be voting for Trump.
Trump won because those jobs are no longer here
Re: (Score:3)
Learn to punctuate.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends. There is still the element of creativity. Until the AI is so advanced that it can say "You know now that I have T if just did U and filled in V blank I could do Z!" That does not have to be some grand thing either it can be the small stuff and still be valuable.
The problem is that there is a relatively limited need for creativity, and indeed excessive creativity is discouraged in the market. Computer interfaces, for example, are for the most part rehashes of existing ideas, because creating something new would cause problems for the consumers. There's already enough material in Spotify and the like that you could spend your entire life without ever listening to the same song twice, but most of us don't want to do that. And you could even do the same with TV and ci
Re: Finally (Score:4, Interesting)
Creative solutions have to be worth the cost of implementing, and in most environments, corporations are huge slow-moving behemoths that get around to innovative solutions once every few months or years. Yay! You found a way to increase productivity by 1%. We would have to change all the manuals, rules of procedures, and disseminate the new method to everyone after we hold a few focus groups and make sure there's absolutely no downside to using this solution over our tried and true method... and maybe change it. Sure, let's pay you $60K+ a year to come up with an innovative solution once in a blue moon rather than just train the robots to do it the old way and maybe put that money towards a hardware/software upgrade for the robots which might boost them 20% instead of your crappy 1% boost.
Point is, robots will eventually be able to do all manual labor, and with the coming AI revolution, most sem-skilled and skilled labor, too. Most businesses fall into manufacturing (all robots) or service industries (all AI and robots) with very few real jobs that couldn't be automated with AI. Even most surgeons can be replaced with a competent AI.
Think of a job. Now ask why that job can't be replaced with an entity that is capable of physically doing things better, faster, cheaper, and longer than a human being and with the current AI revolution and quantum computing can also match the mental capabilities of most humans as well.
Drivers, pilots, delivery people, wait staff, cooking staff, assembly line workers, auto repair workers, clerks, tailors, nurses, pharmacists... so many jobs can be automated. Humans will be relegated to extremely complicated, creative, and/or niche work. Even fully autonomous robot surgeons will be able to do most routine surgeries.
I'm thinking.... plumber, carpenter, plastic surgeon, ER surgeon, brain surgeon, lawyer, judge, politician, actor, musician, writer, software coder, etc will stay largely human jobs for the foreseeable future, but their days are numbered, too. There is AI software that can analyze MRIs better than humans, and it's not much of a step to think it'd be able to choose a surgery option and perform it as well. There are AI law clerks as well. Recently, an AI teacher's assistant was given extremely high marks as the best TA who responded very quickly with helpful suggestions and answers at all hours. The students had no idea the TA was an automated system. Human jobs are often highly repetitive -- we're doomed, bro.
Re: Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets take a recent example of a spring factory that REopened in MI. In the 90s they employed 200 employees. They went over seas (out sourcing) but the QC was crap so they moved back. Just one problem. The new factory only employs 20 people as the other 180 were replaced by machines. So while YES there will 'always' be some human input needed its only 10% or less of what is needed now. Where do the other 90% go? Hell where does the 90% of 90% who are not that smart go when there are no more 'make work' jobs for them and they have neither the aptitude nor inclination to become 'creative'?
This article is pie in the sky, unicorns for everyone BS. Yes eventually humanity will figure out WTF to do... but as history has shown it takes a couple GENERATIONS for us to figure it out. Thats a lot of pissed off, hungry people with nothing to loose. That is a recipe for disaster.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No we are not!
"Zomfg, AI is here, Singularity tomorrow!!!11" is another of my pet pevees.
Just because we throw some neuronal nets at a certain problem and get the right result in some cases does not mean that we are anywhere near finding a general purpose AI, especially since this is not even the goal of AI research.
To get AI we first need to understand NI, ask your neuroscientist how this is going. Spoiler: not very well. While we have some understanding about how a brain works, we really only understand t
More like this: (Score:3)
That's like saying "to pitch a baseball, we have to understand physiology and be able to solve multiple simultaneous equations" or "to light a fire, we have to understand oxidation" or "to build a house we have to understand physics." No, we don't. We just need something that works.
We already don't understand the details of what multilevel neural nets are doing. We just know -- empirically -- that they can do cool things. We can build them. We can train them. They the
Extrapolation? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what the article did.
Automation has always been a net job destroyer and what created demand for workers in the past was labor intensive industries - like auto manufacturing in the late 19 th century.
The people who were and are displaced find themselves out in the cold. Retraining is a fairy tale to keep folks from revolting.
And as we have been seeing, there haven't been enough decent opportunites being created. New industries are starting fr heavily automated such as SpaceX. Their rockets a
Re: Extrapolation? (Score:2)
Your casual comment about "automation has always been a job destroyer" - care to back that up? A study in the UK was done not long ago that proved automation since the Victorian era created more jobs than destroyed - they failed to read your book?
Humanity has been predicting falling skies constantly on this topic since the dawn of the printing press - well ok, not the Technocracy movement from the early 1900s, which predicted we'd be lounging around pools being served martinis by robots except for the 3 day
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is, in the Victorian age, automation freed people up from some jobs, but not everything was automated, so there were still jobs to be had. Sure, they might also be backbreaking labor, but it was still a job.
We're on the cusp of self-driving cars right now. They're not perfect, and it's most cases, it's not true auto-pilot yet, but it's getting there. Assuming no road-blocks (no pun intended) in the way, within 5-10 years, we're going to have self-driving cars.
And there goes the taxi industry. An
Re: Extrapolation? (Score:4, Insightful)
They're free to do other jobs - if those other jobs exist. I don't see why it's a given that they will.
It's not silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to try out your analysis of silly, start by trying to answer "What employment sector can absorb the 3.5 million truck drivers who will be replaced with automated vehicles?". Apply your own biases for how quickly this will have to happen; I'm wild guessing ~5-7 years, starting ~5 years from now.
Then add a million bus and taxi drivers, and then add the job count you ascribe to the edges of trucking (convenience stores and such that cater to them) ... These are essentially unskilled jobs. All you need is a certain threshold of reliability and discipline; for that, you get a good, heretofore stable, career.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly man, those trucks won't program themselves. Those 3.5 million drivers will just have to enroll in some Automated Truck Programming night school classes and they'll be fine!
Re:It's not silly. (Score:5, Interesting)
The U.S. has about 3.6 million software developers. India is expect to outpace the U.S. in number of software developers in a few years.
So, you expect the U.S. to double the software industry to accommodate the new lot, presuming they even have what it takes to retrain. And they'll be competing against India and, I presume, China, and every other country figuring to get in on software.
Numbers are important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Automated-vehicle theft inspectors.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to try out your analysis of silly, start by trying to answer "What employment sector can absorb the 3.5 million truck drivers who will be replaced with automated vehicles?".
If you knew that you'd be rich. Economics is like geology - it isn't about predicting the future, but finding out how things work and why things happen. In general, when an industry becomes obsolete, or replaced by another industry, the replacement industry spawns a bunch of other jobs. Another way to look at it is capital used to do one thing is freed up to do another. Also, making transportation cheaper makes everything cheaper, driving prices down.
So far this has happened in most industries. The importan
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds as if those 3,5 million jobs will dissapear tomorrow. They wont.
1. Autonomous vehicles are nowhere near where they need to be to be able to work in 99.998% of all situations. Sure they may work great on highways (most of the time) but try to get them to navigate those tiny streets in and old city with mixed vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Thats going to be fun
2. People leave the business all the time, this applies to transportation business too. Some truck drivers will die, others retire others wi
Re:It's not silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the cost to provide goods goes down doesn't mean the cost of the good goes down. If a company can lower their expenses but charge you the same amount, I'm pretty sure they're going to try just that. Competition doesn't always work as well as people seem to think it will.
And just because you consume things for free online doesn't mean somebody doesn't pay. It just isn't you, directly. There are still costs involved that have to be covered.
Cost of goods tends to zero... (Score:3)
You're right in an economic theory sense. Ask, though: As these changes happen incrementally, to whom does the profit accrue?
Hint: It's not to the truck driver who used to haul the goods.
This is the problem of automation. As we get superbly efficient, it becomes possible to feed the whole world, and administer that process, with a tiny fraction of the population. So: How do we administer giving food to all the people whose labor is not necessary? We've been finding makework for them, for the last hal
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps Marx (I think) was right and capitalism will inevitably lead to Communism, it's just the countries that tried to make the switch did so too early.
Re:It's not silly. (Score:5, Informative)
Costs are never going down, no matter how much automation there is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is these new jobs require more and more for the people to be smart, creative and ambitious.
Those jobs where you clock in do the same thing everyday and punch out will be gone.
Remember about 50% of the population has below average intelligence there is a good part of the workforce who just doesn't have what it takes in today's economy.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true for mentally handicapped people and those truely unwilling to learn at all (tiny minority).
However most people are surprisingly flexible, intellectually. Drop a below average kid into a class full of geniuses and they will improve drastically just to keep up. Even if they may not reach "genius level" they will certainly surpass their previous level.
Same applies to grown ups. At first it may be difficult for them to adapt, but most will eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile the rest of the class is bored out of their skulls waiting for the new kid to have the teacher explain it to them for the tenth time. I've seen it happen in a university course where someone (not me) spent a third of the lecture not grasping the idea before the professor shut him off and said to see him during office hours. By that time most of the class was ready to kick him into the hall, and not gently.
Not everyone is a genius. Just like everyone is not cut out for university. That's perfec
Re: Finally (Score:2)
The same was true 100 years ago, 200 years ago, ... You really think bookkeepers had the education to use Excel? Cotton pickers to operate the gins? Or hunters to plan out a years worth of farming?
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, automation creates new jobs, But not everyone has the wherewithal to be a software developer. High-skill jobs will always exist, but how many will be available to all of the truck drivers displaced by self-driving trucks?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe we can have more artists, and more time to contemplate art.
Or more youtubers and reality TV shows.
Re: (Score:3)
Software development can be a high skilled job but entry level skills can be obtained in months, which is not coincidentally, how much training time seems to be involved with learning to be a long haul truck driver in the USA (I see quotes of about two months of full time study for the formal exam around the internet so maybe call that three months when employer training time is included). Three months of full time study isn't going to make you a well paid programmer but that's plenty of time to learn basic
Re: (Score:2)
Finally an article that goes against the nonstop doom and gloom tone of seemingly every single report on automation.
Indeed, according to these reports every single job is about to be lost to robots and AI. What they fail to mention is that in the latest robotic competition a robot couldn't even transfer a shopping basket of sundries from one box to another.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not silly. It's inevitable. Previous industrial and tech revolutions helped people to do things better/faster and sometimes replaced people in jobs. This one will replace ALL manual labor. Beyond that, it'll replace many office jobs, and eventually even high skilled jobs.
It doesn't take a crystal ball to see the writing on the wall. Everything a human can do physically at work can be done faster, better, and cheaper with a robot. Sooner or later, AI will be able to do everything a human is menta
Re: (Score:2)
According to the very summary, automation creates new jobs - and automation, quote, "also ends up performing previously-nonexistent jobs".
So how many of those new jobs created do you really think are going to go to humans, who will demand such crazy things as not working 24/7?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if demand was increasing we would run into ecological issues.
We're close to peak global consumption one way or another, we are nowhere close to peak per worker productivity. A problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that happens.
But so does the reverse.
Recently Mercedes (or was it Audi) fired their robots because for many jobs, people are just as fast and much, much more flexible.
Re: Finally (Score:2)
Want a dumber stance: "THIS time around the world will end. No really, it will."
There is math for that (Score:5, Informative)
New jobs - due to innovation or due to other reasons - is what macroeconomics call "growth".
Less jobs for the same effect - due to automation or for other reasons - is what they call an increase in "productivity".
Both effects are measured and reported by various sources.
For the last decades growth has been lower thant productivity gains. These measurements include all the effects he is listing.
The projections for the future are worse. Some of these projections take all these effects into account.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. Can Grandma come and live with you? Her meds are expensive so you'll be wanting save your pennies. Government regulation is expensive too, let's cut back on regulating the airline industry. By their accountants, a few more crashes per year won't prevent people from flying and can be very good for the bottom line. While we're at it, clean air and water are over-rated. Several thousands more dead Americans every year from unclean air and water is totally acceptable and very good again for the bottom
Re: (Score:3)
Governments don't produce capital, they only consume it!
He says. On the internet.
Not automation (Score:5, Insightful)
"There was never a job opening for a drone pilot until there was something to fly,"
A drone is not automation. A self driving drone that knows what to pick up and where to deliver it autonomously is automation. It doesn't need a pilot.
I'd be concerned ordering market research studies from this man's company.
There will be less jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
I've automated a few production lines and the reasons for the automation was to reduce the number of people running the lines. What does happen is a skilled maintenance engineer is required to fix problems on that line and generally a few other similar lines. That can result in the loss of 100 jobs and the creation of 1.
Some processes can result in totally unmanned sites and people only are needed on site when the equipment reports a fault actually often not even then since a backup system tends to come online.
It's not a bad thing to automate jobs but there is a cost to communities when the jobs go.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Another important factor we tech people often ignore is time: it takes time to learn a new job, so even if automation does not affect the total number of jobs, the new jobs will require different skills. The pace of tech change is so rapid these days that it becomes challenging to retrain works quickly enough to take their new jobs without catastrophic loss of income. The U.S. offers minimal care for displaced workers, which is the real problem.
We need automation, even if it reduces the need for those wor
Re:There will be less jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
And there's a non-zero cost to that retraining, which in the vast number of cases is expected to be borne by those that have been displaced. I'm guessing that most people that find themselves out of work aren't going to have the wherewithal to drop a few tens of thousands of dollars to learn what they need for a new career.
Fails to acknowledge what is different now (Score:2)
It is also true that for centuries people did not go to the moon. And then, in 1969, they did.
History is not always a guide. In fact, due to technology, history never repeats - only human behavior patterns repeat.
What is different how is that it is very likely that AI will attain human level thinking ability within the next decade. And that _is_ a game changer.
Wow, completely misses it. (Score:3)
"There was never a job opening for a drone pilot until there was something to fly,"
That's right, because actual pilots in manned aircraft did those jobs before drones.
true but missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's true that every automation, starting with steam engines to run mines, led to an explosion of new job categories.
But what he's missing is that the concept of "everyone should get a job" is just plain wrong. The increase in productivity, and in automation, ought to lead to a situation where goods are so plentiful that we do not need to work, or maybe only work 20 hrs/week for 15 years before retiring. The whole "work ethic" thing arose from two events. The first was humans drifting out of their natural habitat into regions hostile to survival, necessitating a "work or die" paradigm. The second was the development of communities with leaders & followers, in which sooner or later the leaders stop working but spread the gospel of hard work -- which the proles must do to support the leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. In my opinion, millions of idle humans is not going to end well.
Surprise, Automation is already here. (Score:2)
Making things like BandAids and tooth brushes today would be impossibly expensive without totally automated production. Automation in manufacturing is generically at least a century old.
Originally in pre-Christian times, the only people who could afford steel blades were the rich. Bessemer invented the oxygen furnace just before the US Civil War which "automated" the ability to convert iron to steel allowing the world to have massive amounts of steel at low cost.
That put a lot of less efficient people out
The high price of Ignorance (Score:3)
There is quite a high price to pay for ignorance here. Minimum wage finally gets a reasonable plan to increase which addresses many positions, and the greedy response from corporations? "Innovate" to replace these humans who are always bitching about a living wage with automation. We're seeing it everywhere, and that's no illusion. Care to tell me how the McDonalds corporation is creating jobs as they move to kiosks to replace cashiers? Next will be automating the food line. I would envision not a single human needed in a McDonalds store within 20 years, and a single "manager" monitoring hundreds of automated stores from afar. And that's but one example. Wait until the same touchscreen kiosk shows up at your local Starbucks, with a machine making your coffee, replacing those human baristas always demanding more pay. Robotics can also replace surgeons too, so don't dismiss the attack across the entire employment spectrum.
And without some rather massive education reform (which will continue be the constant recommendation if you want to "go anywhere" in life), not everyone is going to be able to afford to go six figures into debt before they can even buy their first new car.
Yes, future innovation may create some jobs, but automation is working hard to replace thousands of jobs that are a launching pad for those trying to pay for an education, or start a career. Without that launching pad, the future looks quite bad.
Re: (Score:3)
> replace these humans who are always bitching
I hate to break it to you, but I've read texts from the Pax Romana era describing how to do this. People have been replacing labor with capital basically forever.
Re: (Score:3)
> replace these humans who are always bitching
I hate to break it to you, but I've read texts from the Pax Romana era describing how to do this. People have been replacing labor with capital basically forever.
I hate to break it to you, but the end result of humans being replaced has resulted in suffering and difficult times no matter what era it takes place in.
TFS attempts to paint over that pain with an innovation brush, as if that is magically going to keep history from repeating itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Minimum wage is an easy thing to shout at.
It may kick off automation several years early, but it doesn't triple labour costs.
If your employee costs 1/3 of a robots purchase price per year, minimum wage pushing that to half might or might not cause you to get a robot.
In five years, when the robot costs a third of what it does now due to a few thousand of them being installed, the difference between 1/3 and 1/2 is not meaningful.
Unless the buisnes is either unusually principled, or compelled to keep the labou
Ugh, still?! (Score:2)
"There was never a job opening for a drone pilot until there was something to fly" :rolleyes:
There was something to fly before drones, airplanes. And they had one or more crew per aircraft. In comparison, drones have multiple aircraft per "pilot", and that pilot has far less to do.
Manhattan project had mechanical computers (Score:2)
...it took a year to check all of the calculations needed to produce the atomic bomb and that work was all done by humans. Imagine how history might be different if even one of them had a pocket calculator.
Apparently this statement refers to people working at the Manhattan project. They had a variety of computing machines [atomicheritage.org]. Feynmann described the process also.
Replace Menial Jobs with Specialized Jobs (Score:2)
Maybe not in aggregate, but (Score:2)
automation displaces specific people in specific jobs. It happens all the time. Look at the coal miners in W Virginia. If ever there was work that was best automated, drilling and digging coal is it. We can say it's a great thing that fewer people are having to risk their health and lives to dig coal, but that ignores what happens to the people who were doing that. Jobs are created for the people who design, build, and maintain the coal mining robots, but that doesn't help the guy who lost his dirty, d
Title contradicts summary (Score:2)
So automation won't displace human workers because new jobs will be created for humans to do... Isn't that the definition of displacement?
This isn't a mechanical loom we're talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
The beginning of automation saw a replacement of human and animal muscle power with water and (later) chemical power. There was little displacement going on, and the increase in output was a necessity anyway due to there being severe shortages. No problems here, quite the opposite.
The next wave was the replacement of menial work with mechanical work. Especially in agriculture a lot of farmhands were replaced by machinery. Low skilled jobs were eliminated in favor of higher skilled jobs that again increased output. This did displace workers and was one of the reasons of the early problems with working poor in the early days of the industrial revolution, where farmhands that were out of a job now moved to the cities where industries offered them.
Next in line were industry jobs getting the same axing, with more streamlining and fewer low skilled jobs being replaced by mechanical workers. This was buffered by the emerging service industry that could gobble up the eliminated low education workforce. That we were fighting world spanning wars around that time sure also helped.
Fast forward to today. Again, jobs are being replaced by robots. This time around, though, none of the former buffering and mitigating factors come into play. We do not need more production. We already produce more than we can sell. By some margin and then some. We also cannot put more people into the service sector, 3 out of 4 people are already working there, and a service industry is highly dependent on people having spare spending money, so these people will not be moving towards another industry branch. They also cannot move anywhere because there is nowhere to go where jobs are being offered.
This time around this is going to sting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine how history might be different if.... (Score:2)
...even one of them had a pocket calculator.
Yes. Human calculators out of work. War ends a year early, putting thousands of military and factory workers out of work....
You get the idea.
Short sighted. (Score:3)
I can't word it differently. The man is right in every respect but it doesn't actually diminish the problem in any way.
The main problem I see is not one of disappearing jobs it is one of pace of change: the type of jobs change so much faster than most of our population can handle, faster than ever in history and the pace keeps increasing. If you replace the garbage man with a robot, he won't be training AI neural nets or become a drone pilot... for more reason than one: he will need training (he is unlikely to be able to afford it), he will need certain abilities he might lack, he might not be mentally flexible enough anymore, ...
This article is bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the correction. However, you should be concered that the 100 million figure didn't trigger an automatic "Wait, what?" sanity check, with or without coffee. There's no way that a third of the US population works in fast food.
Also, I don't think fast food operations will be that quick to automate. Several chains have experimented with automating the customer interface, and customers don't like it. They want to order from people. They could still try to automate the kitchen, but that's already don
Wrong (Score:3)
For most of history, anyone who was able and willing could find a job, because the vast majority of jobs could be done by nearly anyone with perhaps a few weeks' training. There are also skilled jobs, like doctors and engineers, based on deep training.
With automation, the large bulk of jobs can be automated, meaning that people who are able and willing can't get work because the work isn't done by people anymore. For example, look at coal mining - 90% of the jobs were eliminated by coal companies buying huge industrial equipment that can get the coal out at lower cost with 10% of the number of people. Those jobs aren't coming back. And many manufacturing jobs are being automated, because it's cheaper and produced more consistent output.
What that means is that people able and willing to work are unemployed, or at the very least get paid wages 1/2 what people were paid decades ago to do the work (in constant dollars).
And as automation continues to improve its capabilities, and gets cheaper and cheaper, more and more jobs will be automated.
GIven that society can produce things for 1/10th the cost, that means that we could easily provide everyone with food and housing for free. Sadly, in the US, some "Christian" people are so terrified of the idea of anyone getting anything for free, they'd rather force millions of people to be homeless and starve, just because their jobs were eliminated.
I think this is naive (Score:3)
Denying the impact of automation is like denying climate change. We can now build machines that are more efficient than humans. Soon we'll be using machines that are smarter than humans. Whenever I read modern science fiction stories I ask myself could a machine replace the main characters in their jobs. Quite often I think they can.
Re:Missing the point.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, it is the easy, brain-dead jobs that are gong to go out of existence. The jobs that support the automation? Robotics engineers, software engineers, mechanics. These are higher end jobs that require education and training.
Sure, there's always going to be menial labor jobs, but they'll be fewer. Look at what is poised to happen in the fast food industry.
Essentially, if you are not reasonably intelligent, you are going to have some serious issues getting employment within 20-30 years. Maybe even sooner than that.
The GOOD thing is that with lower production costs, it will become less costly to live so maybe these things will balance out as they always have in the past. The future economy, though, looks like it will be vastly different than what we have today.
But, then again, to be fair... People said the exact same thing about the Industrial Revolution. Machines are going to take over! No jobs for anyone! But what really happened was jobs for everyone and things were great.
Based on history and evidence there isn't much to fear, but I just feel that things aren't quite the same this time around...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Robotics engineers, software engineers,mechanics
Until they automate those jobs, too. I mean, why would you use a human engineer when you could get a robot to the same thing with far greater precision, speed and no bitching about pay-rises?
Basically, any job you think of could be automated/roboticized. This includes teaching, child-rearing, musical composition, interpretive dance, cosmologist, explorer, judge, farmer...
People said the exact same thing about the Industrial Revolution
We are still in the industrial revolution and it seems to be playing out exactly as feared.
"The same thing I want with the Kremlin. I'm bo
Re: (Score:2)
The GOOD thing is that with lower production costs, it will become less costly to live so maybe these things will balance out as they always have in the past. The future economy, though, looks like it will be vastly different than what we have today.
Not really. For many people the base-cost of living: the rent, the energy bills, the property taxes, the children - those will all continue at the same levels as before. Many families, especially the low-paid, have very little discretionary income so the lower production costs (not including the raw material, marketing, and development costs) of non-essential consumables will have very little impact on their household budgets.
Re: (Score:3)
Twice in the last week I have been in the presence of politicians saying how "1/3 of new housing is going to be affordable" and they have looked baffled when I explain that this means 2/3 of it will be unaffordable.
I look forward to automated politicians. THAT will be an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, people said that during the Industrial Revolution too....
Re:Missing the point.. (Score:4, Insightful)
But, then again, to be fair... People said the exact same thing about the Industrial Revolution. Machines are going to take over! No jobs for anyone! But what really happened was jobs for everyone and things were great.
Based on history and evidence there isn't much to fear, but I just feel that things aren't quite the same this time around...
Of course they're not the same. The industrial revolution gave us carpet factories and fully carpeted homes. It made production cheap enough that we stopped gluing broken plates together. Over the last century, production has ramped up to the point that we have to be actively coerced to consume past satiation point -- your sports team's strip is updated every season so you'll replace something with several years of useful life left in its fabric.
We've displaced workers from job to job, rendering them more productive, but we've passed over the optimum of productivity vs population. There's nothing that we need all these people for.
Re:Missing the point.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do steel workers who build skyscrapers want to keep building high rise skyscrapers? Because it's their livelihood. I would not want to do either but then again I'm a wuse.
Yeah, well, I also do not really understand why coal workers desperately want to stay coal works. Even here in Germany. In 2016 and global warming that is just downright crazy, ...
Re:Coal workers (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do steel workers who build skyscrapers want to keep building high rise skyscrapers?
I bet a lot of steelworkers might ask why do people want to sit behind a computer screen all day typing code, or work in an office all day? Construction may be one of the most rewarding professions, as you can see the fruits of your labor every single day.
Re: (Score:2)
There are several reasons, some alluded to below. Getting a 50 year old to retrain is hard. Being politically let by a bunch of people who do not believe in helping a workforce meet coming economic trends has led the workers into a cul-de-sac they have no way of escaping. Also, being told that Global Warming doesn't exist helps the pols perpetuate the myth that somehow their jobs can be made to magically reappear. However, if coal does regain any momentum, it will be much more automated so the jobs won't be
Re:Coal workers (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is not that he/she can't learn. Its that he has zero confidence that "retraining" (to do something he already knows how to do) will get him a job when the actual problem is ageism.
I have learned to do several new jobs after the age of 50. The jobs are either unobtainable due to ageism, or the rate of pay has collapsed. (I am still doing another course - but expecting to work for myself this time).
Re: Coal workers (Score:4, Insightful)
The EPA didn't put them out of work. That five hundred ton truck that hauls away the coal after the five ton bucket loader fills it up did.
You don't need ten thousand schmucks with picks and shovels when you have twenty thousand horsepower of machinery operated by three guys and a fee spotters.
They could offer to work for room and board and still not have jobs in the coal industry, unless its driving the trucks and those jobs are on their way out too. They still need one guy to take the blame for the coal ash and mine tailings spills, but Trump gutting the EPA will kill that job too.
Re: (Score:3)
A person with an average intelligence can never be educated to become a scientists, programmer, or an engineer.
Bullshit. You can train a monkey to do these things, even if it takes a while. It is true though that they won't be a brilliant scientist / engineer / programmer they can still be competent to do research ( and understand ) work at various lower levels.
And measuring intelligence is extremely difficult. Someone who is street smart, but didn't finish High School ( and maybe could even score extremely high if they had access to more education while getting by in the world), probably wouldn't score well on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because this time will be the same as all other times... we've got anecdotal proof!
Excuse me, I'm going to become rich on the stockmarket, I saw a pattern.
Re: (Score:3)
Your analysis ignores a whole lot of things for wishful thinking.
Here's a very simple reason why: if robots takes all the jobs, no one has money to spend on the stuff robots are making anymore, there's no money to maintain them, stuff like that has already happened. Economies don't work the way most people think. What's the use of a factory churning out a billion of expensive fancy gadgets if no one has the money or will to purchase them?
Why would a for-profit corporation decide to fix this problem? They would automate and sell 100 fancy gadgets to the wealthy. Laying virtually everyone off and thus exacerbating the overall problem.
This is why, in the modern era, a whole lot of attention and value has moved to stuff like fashion, entertainment, and other non-essencial businesses. Because there's money to be made there. We don't depend on any of that to live, yet we have a huge part of economies on it. We'll always be able to shift the market and create new jobs in areas that might not be considered important today.
The people losing their jobs do not have the wherewithal or genetic luck to be in fashion, entertainment, and most non-essential businesses. They would already be doing that work because it pays so much better.
Yet those worthless people have the