On the issue of jobs....

[Londo_Jowo]

Skynet, machine domination, terminators...........oh my

 

[JEDIYoda]

OK, so first you did not answer my question in any context at all.

Second, do you have any reason for your views? Why is a world where robots do all things needed for human desires a bad thing? What makes you believe that anything is bad?

You used a whole bunch of words and really did not say much other than conjecture about a future that you dont seem to have justification for.

I depend on the other person doing some thinking of their own.


actually your question was due to an inability to comprehend Moonies wisdom! In order to post with the big boys you need to connect the dots. Give your opinion...or as Moonie so eloquesntly stated -- I will do one little piece and that's it because I don't want to argue with you over minutia. I believe that technological advances will make labor less and less needed and I want to talk about how we will address that instead. If you don't think we face such issues, that's fine by me. Here is the one example of what I addressed and you didn't get:

You said: "The idea that you need to have money to participate in a capitalist market is wrong. Goods/services can still be exchanged as capital, and currency is not needed."

I know that and it is why I said: "No matter what capitalism is restricted to or not, it is based right not on the exchange of money. At present, those without work generally don't have any. I said 'right not" but meant "Right now", in short, our system is based on money as a means exchange, not that money is the only means, but the major one. I said, "generally" because people who have capital don't have to work, for example the retired. I was speaking in generalities only and conditioned my words to reflect the fact there are exceptions. You came along and wanted to make issues of the exceptions which I had carefully exempted and was not interested in. The big picture is not a few people living in the mountains eating snakes, but the masses of humanity that rely on work to feed themselves. Assuming, as I did, that technology is making work more and more obsolete, I wanted to discuss what we are going to do about it. I don't give a crap about pulling you self up by the bootstraps, or how unions are destroying the world or any of that shit.

I think work is disappearing. If you want to talk about something else, start your own thread. If you want to say that work is not disappearing that's fine but I was, I think, very clear as to the reasons I think it is.

 

[Belegost]

The other part of your dilemma is what to do with people who's wasteful work we have cut.

For the most part, there is always more waste that needs doing, so we have always moved on and adapted. From following the buffalo, to farms, to factories, to offices, to home offices, to who knows what all next, something.

For a segment of people, we have created enough freedom where large numbers of people can pursue creative interests and not starve to death. The more we cut waste, the more people can pursue their true interests.

For the others caught in the middle, don't have needed "waste-managing" skills, nor create value from creative endeavors (art, writing, youtube unboxing video hosts, tech bloggers, etc.) then we need social policy.

I have no problem in reasonable measures of socialism and welfare. Glenn, maybe not so much. But these are political choices, not technology constraints.

We have every way of providing a basic level of existence for those unable/unwilling to work really hard doing wasteful work we haven't figured out to eliminate yet.

You can curse them for this, maybe be envious. If they have found their nirvana in their level of existence, maybe that is enviable.

Ideally we could get to a state where no one has to work hard labor unless we wanted to, and all of our needs were met as the cost of goods were so low. Greedy people only hoard things of value. If nothing had value anymore due to abundance, then everyone's needs can be met. Until then we have to learn to share a bit.

The bolded section is important, the suggestion from Moonbeam (and lots of others including myself) is that we are increasingly eliminating that wasteful work and replacing it with more efficient systems. This suggests that going forward the demand for workers that are currently working hard to do this wasteful work is going to taper off. We already see this today as wages for the average worker stagnate due to high supply and low demand, but wages for knowledge workers and capital generators/maintainers grow. This is going to mean that the segment of the population that are unable/unwilling to do the remaining wasteful work is going to continue growing.

The problem is that we have a society where the value of a person is strongly tied to their career and how much wealth that generates. So as we increasingly have a segment of the population who are not fit for anything but wasteful, busy work, we will be creating an underclass as those who have the desire/ability to remain efficiently productive look down on those who cannot.

I agree that a life where people have basic needs met and are free to pursue creative expression irrespective of the monetary proceeds from it would be nice - but part of that is a social acceptance of that life as being valuable, humans need the social reaffirmation of their place and value. Without a change in social values this will get ugly. A growing population of frustrated disenfranchised people who are told at every turn they are worthless for not having a job, not climbing the ladder, etc.

Further, our current political structure leaves huge gaps for many of these people to not get basic needs met, and when the discussion arises on how to deal with that there is a strong push against making changes to ensure basic needs, primarily based on the social view of people needing such assistance as being worthless, lazy, and useless.

 

[Moonbeam]

You did not intend, but it is the logical conclusion of your beliefs.



That is an accusation. That is why I started by asking if you had any details to how it was that you got to your belief. Your points are all based on presuppositions about how jobs will be lost as the world changes. That presupposition is not justified by history, so where are you getting that idea?

I think that what you see as the logical conclusion of my beliefs as the logical conclusion of your own.

My presuppositions are about the logical inevitability that must come when the geometrically increasing rate of change outstrips human capacity to adapt to it on a society wide level. There can be no justification from history because that rate of change may not have yet arrived. Your job is to show me that logic doesn't lead where I predict it will, that humans DO IN FACT have an infinite capacity to adapt no matter the rate of change. I have laid out my case as best I can so I rely on you to do your own thinking.

 

[Moonbeam]

The bolded section is important, the suggestion from Moonbeam (and lots of others including myself) is that we are increasingly eliminating that wasteful work and replacing it with more efficient systems. This suggests that going forward the demand for workers that are currently working hard to do this wasteful work is going to taper off. We already see this today as wages for the average worker stagnate due to high supply and low demand, but wages for knowledge workers and capital generators/maintainers grow. This is going to mean that the segment of the population that are unable/unwilling to do the remaining wasteful work is going to continue growing.

The problem is that we have a society where the value of a person is strongly tied to their career and how much wealth that generates. So as we increasingly have a segment of the population who are not fit for anything but wasteful, busy work, we will be creating an underclass as those who have the desire/ability to remain efficiently productive look down on those who cannot.

I agree that a life where people have basic needs met and are free to pursue creative expression irrespective of the monetary proceeds from it would be nice - but part of that is a social acceptance of that life as being valuable, humans need the social reaffirmation of their place and value. Without a change in social values this will get ugly. A growing population of frustrated disenfranchised people who are told at every turn they are worthless for not having a job, not climbing the ladder, etc.

Further, our current political structure leaves huge gaps for many of these people to not get basic needs met, and when the discussion arises on how to deal with that there is a strong push against making changes to ensure basic needs, primarily based on the social view of people needing such assistance as being worthless, lazy, and useless.

The unrecognized psychological fact behind the wisdom of your post, in my opinion, is that the fear of feeling worthless creates an unconscious psychological need to make others feel that way. We create what we fear. You can see this truth surface unconsciously perhaps or perhaps intentionally, in an old film, Forbidden Planet

 

[realibrad]

I think that what you see as the logical conclusion of my beliefs as the logical conclusion of your own.

My presuppositions are about the logical inevitability that must come when the geometrically increasing rate of change outstrips human capacity to adapt to it on a society wide level. There can be no justification from history because that rate of change may not have yet arrived. Your job is to show me that logic doesn't lead where I predict it will, that humans DO IN FACT have an infinite capacity to adapt no matter the rate of change. I have laid out my case as best I can so I rely on you to do your own thinking.

The statement that its an inevitability that change will outstrip human capacity to adapt is a bit confusing to me. What do you mean by change? Change is a very subjective word, and you have not given details about the context you are using it in. I believe once you explain that, I will understand the context you are using adapt as well.

 

[piasabird]

I thought we had socialism?
Social security
SSI
Disability
Food Stamps
Unemployment
Welfare
Aid for dependent Children

 

[realibrad]

I thought we had socialism?
Social security
SSI
Disability
Food Stamps
Unemployment
Welfare
Aid for dependent Children

Those are socialist programs. But, having a few socialist programs does not mean everything is socialist.

 

[moonbogg]

Those are socialist programs. But, having a few socialist programs does not mean everything is socialist.

A little pregnant...

 

[piasabird]

We could just spread ebola around and forget the war.

 

[realibrad]

A little pregnant...

The two cannot really be compared like that. I think its pretty obvious really. Being Pregnant does not denote severity.

 

[glenn1]

A little pregnant...

Social welfare programs in the U.S. are more for hygeine reasons than a concerted effort to reduce inequality. Basically no one wants homeless beggars crowding around every door we try to walk through, and many don't want old sick Grandma hanging out at the house all day. So a minimal welfare net is the toll we pay to go about our business undisturbed by the unappealing being before us constantly in the out of sight, out of mind principle. Hell, a lot of cities have just skipped straight to making it illegal with "loitering" laws to be homeless in public and moving them out of sight proactively, no welfare required.

 

[moonbogg]

Social welfare programs in the U.S. are more for hygeine reasons than a concerted effort to reduce inequality. Basically no one wants homeless beggars crowding around every door we try to walk through, and many don't want old sick Grandma hanging out at the house all day. So a minimal welfare net is the toll we pay to go about our business undisturbed by the unappealing being before us constantly in the out of sight, out of mind principle. Hell, a lot of cities have just skipped straight to making it illegal with "loitering" laws to be homeless in public and moving them out of sight proactively, no welfare required.

Its best to sweep the problems under the rug. As long as some of us are still rich, fuck the rest. Just make sure you are rich and not an idiot loser. Not rich? Your fault.

 

[inachu]

robots replacing illegals will be a dream come true.

Let them know how it feels.

 

[inachu]

100 years from now the average American will send their robots off to work to earn money for them as they swim in the back of the house doing nothing.

Soon AI will complain and people of earth will ban AI.

 

[realibrad]

robots replacing illegals will be a dream come true.

Let them know how it feels.

LOL WTF.

 

[Moonbeam]

The statement that its an inevitability that change will outstrip human capacity to adapt is a bit confusing to me. What do you mean by change? Change is a very subjective word, and you have not given details about the context you are using it in. I believe once you explain that, I will understand the context you are using adapt as well.

I am using change as the product of increased technological capacity as a result of the growth in knowledge. Because knowledge is growing geometrically technological capacity is growing exponentially too.

As fine detail becomes finer and finer the capacity to see the big picture disappears. If Heraclitus says we can't step into the same river twice, imagine the river becoming the Grand Canyon overnight.

 

[realibrad]

I am using change as the product of increased technological capacity as a result of the growth in knowledge. Because knowledge is growing geometrically technological capacity is growing exponentially too.

As fine detail becomes finer and finer the capacity to see the big picture disappears. If Heraclitus says we can't step into the same river twice, imagine the river becoming the Grand Canyon overnight.

OK, so it seems like you have two points in this post. One, is that the change is going to happen very quickly at a rate never seen. My response is do you have any data or logical reason to believe this, or is it based off of conjecture.

The other is an attempt at a definition.

So, technological capacity I'm assuming relates to society, and not something else. You did not say societies capacity for technology, but ill just assume. So it seems like you are saying, that as society gets smarter, its potential increases. That increased potential of society, will not be used by society, because society cannot use what society created?

Why is it that technology increasing will lead to people not being able to use technology. Every innovation that has been technological has been used thus far no?

 

[Moonbeam]

realibrad: OK, so it seems like you have two points in this post. One, is that the change is going to happen very quickly at a rate never seen. My response is do you have any data or logical reason to believe this, or is it based off of conjecture.

The other is an attempt at a definition.

So, technological capacity I'm assuming relates to society, and not something else. You did not say societies capacity for technology, but ill just assume. So it seems like you are saying, that as society gets smarter, its potential increases. That increased potential of society, will not be used by society, because society cannot use what society created?

Why is it that technology increasing will lead to people not being able to use technology. Every innovation that has been technological has been used thus far no?[/QUOTE]

Scientific knowledge is growing exponentially, look it up. The human capacity to assimilate information is not. The do the math. Here's some hope for you:

“The number of neurons that can be recorded simultaneously has been growing exponentially, with a doubling time of about seven and a half years.” This suggests that brain/computer linkages will one day be possible."

I think technology will be used. I think it will be in the form of robots who will do what we now pay people to do. Everybody's job will be as irrelevant is digging holes and filling them up.

 

[TheSlamma]

100 years from now the average American will send their robots off to work to earn money for them as they swim in the back of the house doing nothing.

Soon AI will complain and people of earth will ban AI.

put down the Hollywood movies and go outside and experience robotics and AI.. it's as pathetic as it was 10 years ago

 

[BoberFett]

put down the Hollywood movies and go outside and experience robotics and AI.. it's as pathetic as it was 10 years ago

You're joking, right? I suppose you're one of those numskulls who think robots have to look and act human?



Here you go, numskull, a bunch of dumb robots that haven't advanced in 10 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_lfxPI5ObM

The darling of the auto industry. I see a couple of humans hanging around. It shouldn't take long to eliminate them.

 

[realibrad]

Scientific knowledge is growing exponentially, look it up. The human capacity to assimilate information is not. The do the math. Here's some hope for you:

“The number of neurons that can be recorded simultaneously has been growing exponentially, with a doubling time of about seven and a half years.” This suggests that brain/computer linkages will one day be possible."

I think technology will be used. I think it will be in the form of robots who will do what we now pay people to do. Everybody's job will be as irrelevant is digging holes and filling them up.

Yes, I know knowledge is ever growing. There is also a feedback loop, where as knowledge is gained, its used to learn more.

Ill try explaining why I think your point is wrong. You seem to believe that all the knowledge is too much for a person to be able to learn. That is true, that no one person can learn everything. That is also true of machines. See, society is much like a data center. You do not load all data onto a single drive, computer, server ect. The knowledge is spread over all of society, just like computer data is stored over all different computers.

This is where Adam Smith's insight can help. He helped explain how specialization is limited by the extent of the market. In this case, as we learn more, peoples knowledge will become more specialized. We see this with people, and computers.

The fear you have, is that people wont have jobs as you know them now, because robots will do all of the things we do now. That day may very well come to pass. But, you seem to look at the future through the perspective of today, which is limiting your ability to understand what the world would be like. You are using presuppositions that seem logical, but in reality, do nothing but hold you back.

I brought up Star Trek, and I really do think its relevant here. At some point, robots will make everything so cheap, that building a robot and having robots provide for you will be almost zero. There will be no need for human work, which simply means humans will be free to explore and do what they want with their time.

Now, if you want to talk about superintelligence, that is different. I would imagine that would require a whole new thread.

Check out this podcast if you think its worth some research.

http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2014/Bostromsuperintelligence.mp3

 

[Zaap]

You're joking, right? I suppose you're one of those numskulls who think robots have to look and act human?



Here you go, numskull, a bunch of dumb robots that haven't advanced in 10 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_lfxPI5ObM

The darling of the auto industry. I see a couple of humans hanging around. It shouldn't take long to eliminate them.

Wait so when building things out of steel and glass and all sorts of heavy materials.... people actually use MACHINES?!!!????????!!!!!! SAY IT ISNT SO!!!

Tesla's assembly line should look like Fords from 1914... which of course should have looked like 1814...

Better yet, I want my 100k car to cost 100 billion because each one is made entirely by hand like a samarai sword....screw interchangeable parts!

Alarmists like you lost your mind from the very first time mankind figured out you could harness a windmill to do the work of 30-40 people or that a steam shovel could replace a few hundred. "OMG!!!!!! This industrial revolution thing is out of control!!!! No one will have a job ever again!!!!! Gangs of a couple hundred dudes should still be hauling stones up dirt ramps rather than use one of those evil crane things!!!!"

I bet if we went all the way back to the stone age we could achive 100% full employment as hunter-gatherers.

 

[ivwshane]

I would love to agree with you and I'm sure moonbeam would as well, the question is how would we go from our economic system we have now to that one? I would also like to know when this transition will happen (as in what events would prompt the change)?

Yes, I know knowledge is ever growing. There is also a feedback loop, where as knowledge is gained, its used to learn more.

Ill try explaining why I think your point is wrong. You seem to believe that all the knowledge is too much for a person to be able to learn. That is true, that no one person can learn everything. That is also true of machines. See, society is much like a data center. You do not load all data onto a single drive, computer, server ect. The knowledge is spread over all of society, just like computer data is stored over all different computers.

This is where Adam Smith's insight can help. He helped explain how specialization is limited by the extent of the market. In this case, as we learn more, peoples knowledge will become more specialized. We see this with people, and computers.

The fear you have, is that people wont have jobs as you know them now, because robots will do all of the things we do now. That day may very well come to pass. But, you seem to look at the future through the perspective of today, which is limiting your ability to understand what the world would be like. You are using presuppositions that seem logical, but in reality, do nothing but hold you back.

I brought up Star Trek, and I really do think its relevant here. At some point, robots will make everything so cheap, that building a robot and having robots provide for you will be almost zero. There will be no need for human work, which simply means humans will be free to explore and do what they want with their time.

Now, if you want to talk about superintelligence, that is different. I would imagine that would require a whole new thread.

Check out this podcast if you think its worth some research.

http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2014/Bostromsuperintelligence.mp3

 

[BoberFett]

I really need to sit down sometime and organize my thoughts on this. It would end up being a rather lengthy paper.

The facts are that it's labor all the way down. Every cent of everything you buy ultimately goes to labor. While I disagree with his application of some of his ideas, Marx is correct about the concept of the labor theory of value. No matter what you buy, 100% of the value of that item is based on the value added throughout the process by labor. An unused raw good has zero value. It's just minerals in the ground. It's not until you pay someone to mine ore out of the ground, someone to smelt it into usable metals, someone to craft it into a finished good, someone to transport it to the store, and someone to put it on the shelf does that item have value. But labor doesn't have to be done by humans, and an ever increasing portion of the labor pie is being contributed by machines

Mining technology has eliminated lots of mining jobs. Robots have been manufacturing our goods for some time. Now they're picking, packing and shipping orders. Fields that think they're safe from machines because their jobs are "creative" will continue to be cut back, if not eliminated. I just watched a video about machines that do quality control on auto paint jobs. A subjective job now being done by a robot. Machines will continue to become more and more capable, and I think within my lifetime (I'm almost 40) we'll see a majority of the world's work output being done by machines.

What then? Can the world really support a billion poets? A billion musicians? A billion painters and sculptors? Even if they don't need to do it to live, part of the drive of being an artist is recognition of one's work. And if there are a billion of you, do we all have an audience of one? Idle hands are the devil's plaything. Will we all live a life of enlightened luxury? Will it be like Wall-E, a bunch of gluttonous mounds of fat watching TV? Will it be a lawless, hedonistic culture where we all try to get away with as much as possible just to entertain ourselves? Even if you solve the problems of supplying the entire worlds' needs, there's something about labor which makes us human.

It's going to be an interesting future, for sure.