Technological unemployment.

[sk8er913]

I have been hearing a lot of scary things this week. This is a segment from Wikipedia. What do you think about this? From one person I heard unemployment rate could reach double the great depression, SOON! In this new era that seems to have started during the past few years. Remember when we saw that self driving BMW on Top Gear and those robots on the assembly line? That was only the first step.



"In 2013, professor Nick Bloom of Stanford University stated there had recently been a major change of heart concerning technological unemployment among his fellow economists. In 2014 the Financial Times reported that the impact of innovation on jobs has been a dominant theme in recent economic discussion. According to the accademic and former politician Michael Ignatieff writing in 2014, questions concerning the effects of technological change have been "haunting democratic politics everywhere". Concerns have included evidence showing worldwide falls in employment across sectors such as manufacturing, falls in pay for low and medium skilled workers stretching back several decades even as productivity continues to rise, and the occurrence of "jobless recoveries" after recent recessions. The 21st century has seen a variety of skilled tasks partially taken over by machines, including translation, legal research and even low level journalism. Care work, entertainment, and other tasks requiring empathy, previously thought safe from automation, have also begun to be performed by robots.

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary and Harvard economics professor Lawrence Summersstated in 2014 that he no longer believed automation would always create new jobs and that "This isn’t some hypothetical future possibility. This is something that’s emerging before us right now." While himself an optimist about technological unemployment, professor Mark MacCarthy stated in the fall of 2014 that it is now the "prevailing opinion" that the era of technological unemployment has arrived."

...

"A survey at Davos 2014 found that 80% of 147 respondents agreed that technology was driving jobless growth. At the 2015 Davos, Gillian Tett found that almost all delegates attending a discussion on inequality and technology expected an increase in inequality over the next five years, and gives the reason for this as the technological displacement of jobs."

 

[eran0004]

There are several benefits of an industry populated mainly by machines:

• Machines can be designed to perform specific and repetitive tasks, they work fast and never get bored.
• Machines don't need to get payed. They require energy to run, but that's about it.
• Machines can work 24 hour shifts, no breaks needed apart from the occasional maintenance.
• Machines don't need to travel between home and the workplace. Less traffic, no rush hours.
• People could get more time to spare - for spending with their family, for individual development, for doing things they want to do rather than things they have to do.

The problem is how to distribute the wealth in a world where you can't rely on the industry to do that.

 

[Robin]

I saw an article which said something like 30 percent of UK jobs will be lost to robots in the next few decades. It's not good IMO. Think how many clerical roles have disappeared since computers arrived.

 

[sk8er913]

I saw an article which said something like 30 percent of UK jobs will be lost to robots in the next few decades. It's not good IMO. Think how many clerical roles have disappeared since computers arrived.

But it is good in the long term. In the short term we are 🤬. but we will become better because of it.

@eran0004 with good software, those robots aren't so repetitive. They can learn about things and use their new skills, on their own. As long as its in their physical limitations.

 

[tarnheld]

And robots can do work too dangerous for humans, or detrimental for their health. And most of the work replaced by robots is so boring that imho only robots should do it -- i once worked in a stamping factory and it was so dull and repetitive that i wouldn't want any person to work there more than a week.

@eran0004 with good education, those humans aren't so repetitive. They can learn about things and use their new skills, on their own. As long as its in their physical limitations.

Hey, that sounds more like an advice to humans, fixed that for you.

 

[sk8er913]

And robots can do work too dangerous for humans, or detrimental for their health. And most of the work replaced by robots is so boring that imho only robots should do it -- i once worked in a stamping factory and it was so dull and repetitive that i wouldn't want any person to work there more than a week.


Hey, that sounds more like an advice to humans, fixed that for you.

Lets just replace all of the jobs so we can do whatever the 🤬 we want.

 

[Carbonox]

The problem is how to distribute the wealth in a world where you can't rely on the industry to do that.

Basic income?

 

[AOS-]

We already have machines doing a ton of work man had to do by hand before.

What this just means now is that while maintaining the machines, these workers can now go do other work within the company. More machines can probably mean there will be a larger market for technician roles.

 

[sk8er913]

We already have machines doing a ton of work man had to do by hand before.

What this just means now is that while maintaining the machines, these workers can now go do other work within the company. More machines can probably mean there will be a larger market for technician roles.

What about the robots that repair robots that take tbe technicians place... it is possible.

There are also programs that are able to "create" there own music that never ends.

 

[AOS-]

What about the robots that repair robots that take tbe technicians place... it is possible.

Not impossible, but that's silly thinking to me. If we could make robots that would fix machines, we wouldn't even need them because we could instead simply have the machines be able to fix themselves.

There are also programs that are able to "create" there own music that never ends.

Man programs computers to think. Man has yet to be able to program a computer to create something as subjective as art to the caliber of artists and composers.

 

[sk8er913]

Not impossible, but that's silly thinking to me. If we could make robots that would fix machines, we wouldn't even need them because we could instead simply have the machines be able to fix themselves.


Man programs computers to think. Man has yet to be able to program a computer to create something as subjective as art to the caliber of artists and composers.

I heard one recently that sounded quite good, but it was in the background, so that probably had an effect too.

But if they break, how are they able to fix themselves, that doesn't make any sense, they are broken.

 

[eran0004]

Basic income?

Possibly. And maybe combined with a reduction in working time, so that the fewer available jobs are shared between more people. It would be an issue when it comes to jobs that require expertise though: you don't automatically get 20% more doctors to fill the gap created by cutting the working time by 20%. At the same time, if some people work full time while the majority works at reduced time the income gap would increase - unless the basic income would only be provided to those that work at reduced time, but in that case it would be unfair to those who work full time...

 

[Danoff]

This complaint has been around since the invention of the lightbulb (what will the candlemakers do?). This is how economies find efficiency, and the reason that we enjoy a life of vast luxury compared to what life was like when we worried about how candlemakers might survive the lightbulb.

In short - this is what progress looks like. It's not new, it's not different, and it's not scary.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

This complaint has been around since the invention of the lightbulb (what will the candlemakers do?). This is how economies find efficiency, and the reason that we enjoy a life of vast luxury compared to what life was like when we worried about how candlemakers might survive the lightbulb.

In short - this is what progress looks like. It's not new, it's not different, and it's not scary.

Technological process, yes! Social progress? It depends on your point of view, but to me it isn't. With the worlds population continuously growing there should be an ever increasing number of jobs being made available, in order for people to make a living. But instead, it's going the other way...

And why is this? Because rather than paying employees by the month corporations would rather machines do their jobs instead, as they don't have to be paid at all. I'm all for technological development, but not when it costs people their jobs.

 

[BobK]

Ah, the Luddites arise.

Some people (a lot of them, yes) will lose their jobs. But other opportunities will be created; that's the whole point of what @Danoff is saying. Just look at the history of the Industrial Revolution. People were raising concerns about this in the beginning of the 19th Century.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

Ah, the Luddites arise.

Some people (a lot of them, yes) will lose their jobs. But other opportunities will be created; that's the whole point of what @Danoff is saying. Just look at the history of the Industrial Revolution. People were raising concerns about this in the beginning of the 19th Century.

Seeing as I'm a graphic designer who does much of his work on computers, your assumption is highly inaccurate. However it's not wrong of me to be concerned for those who it will affect.

 

[niky]

Technological process, yes! Social progress? It depends on your point of view, but to me it isn't. With the worlds population continuously growing there should be an ever increasing number of jobs being made available, in order for people to make a living. But instead, it's going the other way...

And why is this? Because rather than paying employees by the month corporations would rather machines do their jobs instead, as they don't have to be paid at all. I'm all for technological development, but not when it costs people their jobs.

It's a fallacy to think in terms of "machines don't have to be paid."

You don't pay machines directly, but you pay for machines! (and the amount of money we pay for a machine by the month will often make your toes curl. It's not a small amount)

I've been in graphic design and print, on and off, for decades.

We even had an actual typeset for printing. Very labor intensive. And now hopelessly obsolete. There are many job skills that have gone obsolete in the past few decades, and many more that might become endangered in the next. We no longer need typesetters. Strippers are an endangered species. Our numbering machines very rarely see action nowadays. Any operator specializing in numbering now has to do something else. Eventually, we won't need people to do cutting or assembly, either. Everything will be handled inside the same machine, run by a single operator. For many small-scale presses that don't do custom die-cut pieces and 10,000+ copy jobs, this has already happened.

Everything is digital. But at a price. We've spent a whole lot of money to get to the point where two or three men can do the work of a dozen. But we're here. As a business owner, you'd be a fool to create jobs where there is no need for them, incurring operational costs that would put you out of business. But running a highly-automated business is anything but cheap. You incur huge upfront capital costs that need to be amortized through high business volume. Manual labor allows you to forego upfront capital costs, at the expense of profitability. That balance is not the same for everyone. This is why manual labor jobs still exist despite robots.

-

Like Danoff says: This is nothing new. It has been going on since the invention of the plow. Machines multiply productivity. Decreasing employment is only a side-effect. Your duty as a worker is to learn new skills to either keep ahead of the machines or to utilize mechanized production to your advantage. Become a mechanic. A technician. An engineer.

-

Also, it'd be nice to give everyone jobs. But are you ready and willing to put up with the price increase in basic commodities this entails?

Unless you buy exclusively at the organic produce section of your local supermarket, the answer is probably no.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

It's a fallacy to think in terms of "machines don't have to be paid."

You don't pay machines directly, but you pay for machines! (and the amount of money we pay for a machine by the month will often make your toes curl. It's not a small amount)

Of course. But depending on the machines in question, they don't cost the same as human labour. My issue here isn't with the factory robots (which undoubtedly cost more), but the self-checkouts we see at supermarkets. An eight lane self-checkout set up costs a company around £160,000 upfront which does mean, during the year they're set up, going to cost the company more money. However they can't cost anything like a human salary to maintain and so in following years, save companies quite a margin...

Although I have to wonder if some companies bother maintaining them at all. The ones in my local Tesco break so often it's not even funny...okay, it is funny!

 

[Harry6784]

As a business owner, you'd be a fool to create jobs where there is no need for them, incurring operational costs that would put you out of business.

This. Businesses are not here to hand out free money from the goodness of their hearts.

With more automated hardware entering in the job market, yes they are squeezing people out but at the same time they create a vast opening where before there was none. Simply creating a reliable, safe, productive machine is a long drawn out process that requires many people and many dollars. All machines have to be regularly maintained, updated and troubleshooted. Then the whole process is repeated.

Along with providing new I.T. jobs, one perk of the new lower cost to manufacture goods is that those goods are now cheaper to the consumer. When was the last time you bought a 'cheap' hand-built car?

 

[niky]

Although I have to wonder if some companies bother maintaining them at all. The ones in my local Tesco break so often it's not even funny...okay, it is funny!

That's the other side of the coin. These machines do break. When you're doing accounting, you have to take this into... account... and plan accordingly. Typically we give small machines and electronics a three to five year lifespan within which they need to pay for themselves. Automation does save you money, but if you're stupid about it, it can cost you more.

When was the last time you bought a 'cheap' hand-built car?

Lots of them here. But you wouldn't want to drive them!

 

[Danoff]

I've done a fair bit of automation myself, and I (like everyone here) have seen a lot of automation arise over my lifetime. Every time progress occurs, the economy restructures. That's how economies grow and maintain efficiency. An inefficient economy is a non-competitive economy. China is growing at the rate it is not because they insist on providing as many jobs as possible, but because they allow at least the economic side of their government to encourage economic efficiency. A country that adopts a protectionist strategy toward jobs is an entire country that goes obselete and stagnates its standard of living.

Take, for example, the advent of streaming movies and TV shows. Blockbuster is a thing of the past. Think of all of the employees that it takes to run a blockbuster. Janitors, cashiers, stockers, but also think of the factory workers for the VHS tapes, the shipping industry moving those VHS tapes from store to store. It's a big industry wiped off the face of the country by what would appear to be a net loss in employment. Netflix doesn't require the kind of workforce that blockbuster did. Netflix doesn't pay the kind of retail rent, and cashier salary. Netflix doesn't require the distribution capability to have the movie you want at your corner store when you want it.

...and yet.... Netflix dropped prices for movie rentals. Renting two movies in a month from blockbuster cost more than a month of netflix. You can watch 10 movies, easily, for the cost of what used to be 2, and you don't have to drive to the local store. That's a standard of living increase, but it's also something else - massive growth in demand for media. This means jobs being created in a much more productive industry (entertainment) than maintenance workers, cashiers, and shipping services. Entertainment is actually an industry that we export (bigtime) in America, it's hard to export cashiers. Imagine, for a moment, that we didn't have netflix because of concern for blockbuster. The entire US economy suffers and standard of living goes down.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

Problem is not all janitors, cashiers, and stockers, can be trained to work in the entertainment industry. So these new jobs created by technological development does not offset their job loss.

 

[BobK]

Problem is not all janitors, cashiers, and stockers, can be trained to work in the entertainment industry. So these new jobs created by technological development does not offset their job loss.

I'm sure that a fair number of buggy whip makers were unable to shift careers to automobile assembler. This doesn't change the fact that the auto industry created many many jobs that didn't exist before.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

I'm sure that a fair number of buggy whip makers were unable to shift careers to automobile assembler. This doesn't change the fact that the auto industry created many many jobs that didn't exist before.

Since when was I talking about the automobile industry?! I get you were using it as a metaphor but it doesn't vaguely correlate to the careers I'm talking about. Expecting a Blockbuster crew member (be it janitor, cashier, or stocker) to suddenly learn media production just because their post got abolished, is a lot like expecting a parking valet to do a full engine rebuild...

So yes, they may well open up new job posts elsewhere. But unlike the jobs they 'replace' they're jobs that a lot of people aren't able to do.

 

[BobK]

Since when was I talking about the automobile industry?!

You weren't. It's an example.

From dictionary.com:

3. an instance serving for illustration; specimen
6. a precedent; parallel case

I get you were using it as a metaphor but it doesn't vaguely correlate to the careers I'm talking about. Expecting a Blockbuster crew member (be it janitor, cashier, or stocker) to suddenly learn media production just because their post got abolished, is a lot like expecting a parking valet to do a full engine rebuild...

You are aware of the fact that the skillset of a janitor is largely the same regardless of the establishment, right? Whether it's a Blockbuster store or some other retail outlet, it's still largely the same. It's even very close to the janitor job description in an accounting office (yes I realize you're not talking about accounting either, but bear with me). Similarly for a cashier... or a stockperson. Their job may be eliminated at Blockbusters, but perhaps they could apply at the convenience store across the street.

There's no reason pretty much any (admittedly not all, but most) parking valet couldn't do full engine rebuilds, with suitable training.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

You are aware of the fact that the skillset of a janitor is largely the same regardless of the establishment, right?

Yup! 👍

Similarly for a cashier... or a stockperson. Their job may be eliminated at Blockbusters, but perhaps they could apply at the convenience store across the street.

There's no reason pretty much any (admittedly not all, but most) parking valet couldn't do full engine rebuilds, with suitable training.

My point is when a number of cashier positions are getting replaced with automation at many stores, the overall availability of such jobs decreases. And then what? Sure, some people can just learn to do a new job. But that's not the case for everyone.

 

[Danoff]

My point is when a number of cashier positions are getting replaced with automation at many stores, the overall availability of such jobs decreases. And then what? Sure, some people can just learn to do a new job. But that's not the case for everyone.

Not how it works. The person displaced doesn't go find the new job that opens, someone else does, and it opens up a job that wasn't available that that person was doing. The entire workforce shifts, slightly.

Now, why didn't you consider that? I think the reason that that simple thought never entered your brain is not because you were incapable of having it, but because you're bringing a desired outcome into the conversation and attempting to make it fit. I shouldn't have to point this kind of thing out to anyone, but the reason I do (over and over, to almost everyone) is because they don't want to think about it honestly.

I know that comes off harshly, but really I want to encourage everyone to really think about economics and consider more than just the very first reaction that comes into your brain. Most people don't learn economics, and so it requires some effort to consider.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

Not how it works. The person displaced doesn't go find the new job that opens, someone else does, and it opens up a job that wasn't available that that person was doing. The entire workforce shifts, slightly.

Although I didn't use those exact words, that is the point I was trying to make. Some will retrain to those new jobs, but very few. So where does that leave those who don't? For the record I'm not trying to fit a school bus through a Mini-sized gap here; I am saying my honest thoughts.

 

[FastFurious77]

Should post disclaimer here. Only reply if educated in Economics.... LOL I was a computer engineer though a long time ago. Or should I say I engineered the computer LOL. Jokes aside.

 

[Danoff]

Although I didn't use those exact words, that is the point I was trying to make. Some will retrain to those new jobs, but very few. So where does that leave those who don't?

The people who retrain are more likely to be people who are already doing something very similar. It'll be a small adjustment to their career path, where they decide to go in a slightly different direction than they were headed due to the areas where there are job openings. When millions of people do that over a decade, the economy shifts. The lowest level work (stocker, cashier, janitor) is a transient job anyway, not something that you spend your entire life doing (and god help you if you did). So those people are looking for openings to adjust their careers anyway. In a compressed example though:

- Netflix puts Blockbuster cashier out of work
- Netflix creates demand for streaming content
- Writer leaves CBS for a job writing for a new Netflix original series
- Writer leaves his job on a low circulation TV show to work at CBS
- Waiter who is an aspiring screenwriter lands the job on the low circulation TV show, flips off his boss.
- Grocery store cashier takes a job as a waiter to get some of that tip money.
- Old blockbuster cashier takes a job as a grocery store cashier.