On the issue of jobs....

[Londo_Jowo]

Based on the lack of artificial intelligence capable computers/robots I would say the days of robot replacing people will not be happening any time soon.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Inevitability, Mr. Anderson, Inevitability.... Not to far in from the knee of the asymptote is straight up. Imagine a program that replicates with abandon and has no idea why it exists.

It's a matter of supply and demand. The number of people who are exceptional are fewer than those who are not. It's grand if suddenly faced with unemployment everyone becomes a genius, but what if those become a dime a dozen? More people grasping at less and less. It would be a wonderful thing if we did not value people as we do but what you and I would like is irrelevant to the Darwinism which is the real world. This reality is not a meritocracy, this is who is the biggest shark. There is no use in denying it and indeed until the people at large look at what is coming they'll ultimately be discarded. Now as to what can be done? I have a couple ideas, but that all depends on rational and logical analysis and application. Can we do that? That's the biggest question of all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Based on the lack of artificial intelligence capable computers/robots I would say the days of robot replacing people will not be happening any time soon.

This has been happening for a very long time already. A "robot" needn't be of Asimov complexity. It's a mechanical/electronic paradigm which is open ended in it's ability to replace the need for humans. Between outsourcing and "productivity" things aren't looking great for the majority of Homo Sapiens.

An interesting thing about Luddites- they were not anti-technology. They were mostly opposed to it replacing people. They were merely too early in that concern. Machines needed caring for, they made more jobs possible because of the things they could not do, but now that has changed. This wonderful "recovery", burger flippers, and walmart employees which used to be an option when all else failed. But now dozens compete for the most menial jobs. How is that a good thing?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This has been happening for a very long time already. A "robot" needn't be of Asimov complexity. It's a mechanical/electronic paradigm which is open ended in it's ability to replace the need for humans. Between outsourcing and "productivity" things aren't looking great for the majority of Homo Sapiens.

An interesting thing about Luddites- they were not anti-technology. They were mostly opposed to it replacing people. They were merely too early in that concern. Machines needed caring for, they made more jobs possible because of the things they could not do, but now that has changed. This wonderful "recovery", burger flippers, and walmart employees which used to be an option when all else failed. But now dozens compete for the most menial jobs. How is that a good thing?

Who said the lack of menial jobs was good? I'm not anti-technology ether, I have much experience in machinery automation and I base my opinions on this experience.

The fact of the matter there are still many jobs that can't be done by robots/automated machinery because they do not have the capability of independent thought and I don't see that occurring anytime soon.

 

[ivwshane]

Based on the lack of artificial intelligence capable computers/robots I would say the days of robot replacing people will not be happening any time soon.

Who said anytime soon? That kind of ruins your other post doesn't it

 

[ivwshane]

Bartering is a part of Capitalism. Money is not the only form or capital. I dont know of any other way to say that to make it easier. I mean, paying for something is a form of trading, as you are exchanging capital/currency for goods/services.

So, you want to know why efficiency and technology has gone up, but we work more than ever eh. People want more. If I wanted a lifestyle of say the 50s, how much would I need to work? A typical middle class lifestyle would not require a 40hr week for the vast majority of people working. You want a house under 1000 square feet, that is super cheap. Want a car without power anything or AC, it can be yours. Want an AC for your house, nope, because thats for the rich.

People work because they want newer and better things. People are ok with working more, as long as they get neat things.

Lol. So you think that once people are no longer needed for jobs then they will start bartering and somehow that's better than the 1950's promise/hope that new tech would bring?

I don't think you understand this thread (or maybe I don't). The point is; take capitalism to its logical conclusion and you end up with little to no labor costs selling things to an ever increasingly small consumer base. The question isn't will this happen, the question what would we do when it does happen?

 

[Belegost]

[...]So, at some point, robots cannot fill all human wants. Human brains are years ahead of any robot. The ability of the human brain is not even fully understood, so the idea that we can make something more powerful than it is a long way off.

The whole point seems to be that there will be a time, when people will not be able to offer enough value, to be paid by another person. Why pay a person to make my food, when I can pay a robot far less right?

Part of the answer is already obvious. Why do people still buy things in a store instead of online? People crave human interaction. [...]

So that explains why online shopping is not really a thing, and there are no B&M stores being squeezed out of the market ... Oh wait.

Overall that example is poor, most of the value in a brick and mortar store is in the physical interaction with the product, if that same interaction could be done with automated checkout systems and help systems on smartphones, or robot assistants it would work quite as well for most people.

Similar for the food prep question - I honestly don't care if my steak was prepared by a chef or a robot, provided the results are of the same quality. At the high end of the market it will probably still be humans for the kitchen as well as the waitstaff, but I could definitely see the Chili's/Applebees/TGIF level places going to an automated kitchen, and they are already automating much of the waitstaff duties to reduce headcount. As for the low end fast food places - I don't care if I go to the drive through, speak to a voice recognition system, and pull up to a window that just has tray slide out with my order on it. I'm hardly having any meaningful human interaction by repeating "The chicken cheese bacon club with no ranch" three times.

And don't think that this is just about grunt work, even positions that require knowledge and intelligence are in the line of fire.

While I don't disagree there are places where human interaction is desired, a great many jobs are not those, and changing social norms are increasingly removing those as new generations grow up with less expectation of human service. Human interaction needs will be met through other sources, primarily leisure activities.

The question I have is - historically new advances in technology that reduced labor force in one market segment have been offset by the opening of new opportunities in new market areas. As increasingly advanced automation systems chip away at labor demand in a lot of current labor areas, where do you see there being new opportunities?

To date, I have not received a good answer for this question - a lot of people feel like the historical trend will continue (automation will just lead to higher productivity overall, and there will be demand for labor elsewhere) but no one seems to have a good suggestion for where this demand will be.

We can already rule out the human-based service industry, in modern countries that really doesn't have much room to grow, things are pretty saturated and will pretty much grow as a function of population growth.

There is also not going to be a big place for robot manufacturing (which I swear is everyone's favorite pick "well someone has to build the robots!"); the design and engineering can be done by rather small teams compared to the number of units that can be produced; and the manufacture of the robots is an obvious place for automation.

Maintenance of the systems would expand, but the economics wouldn't work out if the maintenance of the automation systems took as much labor as the systems displace. Repair work will be efficiently done at centralized refurbishing centers, which of course would be heavily automated.

So, where?

 

[Moonbeam]

It's a matter of supply and demand. The number of people who are exceptional are fewer than those who are not. It's grand if suddenly faced with unemployment everyone becomes a genius, but what if those become a dime a dozen? More people grasping at less and less. It would be a wonderful thing if we did not value people as we do but what you and I would like is irrelevant to the Darwinism which is the real world. This reality is not a meritocracy, this is who is the biggest shark. There is no use in denying it and indeed until the people at large look at what is coming they'll ultimately be discarded. Now as to what can be done? I have a couple ideas, but that all depends on rational and logical analysis and application. Can we do that? That's the biggest question of all.

Indeed. It seems that people don't have a good intuitive feel what an asymptotic graph represents, but to me it means that what is a long long way away gets here real fast. Moore's law applies not only to computational power but to almost every field of research in robotics I can think of. Knowledge is growing geometrically.

I think also that a major problem is that sharks do well because we created a shark tank.

 

[Bitek]

For comparison, you can equate farm animals to robots. Other than construction, how are they different? They are both work multipliers used to perform tasks for people and enhance their abilities. Anyone want to try plowing a field by hand?

Did anyone decry domestication as costing jobs? Surely they do. As did mechanical tractors. Did we suddenly not be able to afford food as there are few farm jobs left? No. What happened is we were able to squeeze so much waste and effort from the process that the cost of food has plummeted and we are able to eat more than ever.

Do you think about saving and reusing nails? No, nails are cheap. But that's because we have efficient machines that make them cheap. Can you make one on your own? How long to make 1000 if so? Your cost to produce is huge.

At one point, nails were insanely expensive. So woodworkers made time consuming and complicated joints. Their labor was cheaper than the nails. Now illiterates with nail guns can frame out houses in mere days.

Think about the replicators from star trek. Tell the computer what you want, and it instantly makes exactly what you want, right then. Think about what that means. No factories, no inventories, no transportation, no stores, no marketing, no black Friday sales, nothing.

What is the cost of the goods? Essentially 0! (Assume the E is free, zero point generators/graviton fields/whatever)

There is no jobs to do almost anything anymore, but your cost of living is near 0. Would those people be richer or poorer than us? Is that so horrible?

 

[Moonbeam]

For comparison, you can equate farm animals to robots. Other than construction, how are they different? They are both work multipliers used to perform tasks for people and enhance their abilities. Anyone want to try plowing a field by hand?

Did anyone decry domestication as costing jobs? Surely they do. As did mechanical tractors. Did we suddenly not be able to afford food as there are few farm jobs left? No. What happened is we were able to squeeze so much waste and effort from the process that the cost of food has plummeted and we are able to eat more than ever.

Do you think about saving and reusing nails? No, nails are cheap. But that's because we have efficient machines that make them cheap. Can you make one on your own? How long to make 1000 if so? Your cost to produce is huge.

Think about the replicators from star trek. Tell the computer what you want, and it instantly makes exactly what you want, right then. Think about what that means. No factories, no inventories, no transportation, no stores, no marketing, no black Friday sales, nothing.

What is the cost of the goods? Essentially 0! (Assume the E is free, zero point generators/graviton fields/whatever)

There is no jobs to do almost anything anymore, but your cost of living is near 0. Would those people be richer or poorer than us? Is that so horrible?

Nice, but in star trek everybody can use the replicator. And why, because people don't need to compete for the privilege.

 

[Bitek]

Nice, but in star trek everybody can use the replicator. And why, because people don't need to compete for the privilege.

It's all the same pattern. Technology makes things cheaper over time. The poor in this country are still incredibly well off by global and historical standards. What counted as manors at one point would be considered shabby derilics if a modern builder built it new for you.

The difference in wealth is growing, but overall levels of wealth has increased for everyone as costs have fallen. Part of this cost is the "waste" of labor, but forcing more labor into the process impoverishes everyone

 

[glenn1]

Lol. So you think that once people are no longer needed for jobs then they will start bartering and somehow that's better than the 1950's promise/hope that new tech would bring?

I don't think you understand this thread (or maybe I don't). The point is; take capitalism to its logical conclusion and you end up with little to no labor costs selling things to an ever increasingly small consumer base. The question isn't will this happen, the question what would we do when it does happen?

All physical labor could be done by robots and it wouldn't matter. In the end people have the primary skills that still generate value - the ability to generate creative ideas, solve problems, and reorganize stale paradigms into something new. If all you have to offer is physical brawn without any grey matter to support it, you're going to get left behind in the modern world and rightfully so. We already have enough subsistence farmers on earth and don't need to add more in the U.S. which is the most innovative and creative nation on the planet.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

All physical labor could be done by robots and it wouldn't matter. In the end people have the primary skills that still generate value - the ability to generate creative ideas, solve problems, and reorganize stale paradigms into something new. If all you have to offer is physical brawn without any grey matter to support it, you're going to get left behind in the modern world and rightfully so. We already have enough subsistence farmers on earth and don't need to add more in the U.S. which is the most innovative and creative nation on the planet.

If they be like to die they had better do so and decrease the surplus population, and rightfully so. I can imagine you saying that to your son or daughter they deserve just that because they can't keep up with mine.

 

[glenn1]

If they be like to die they had better do so and decrease the surplus population, and rightfully so. I can imagine you saying that to your son or daughter they deserve just that because they can't keep up with mine.

Unless you plan on offering a job to those folks with no appreciable creative skills in a labor devalued economy, then your fancy words don't mean shit and certainly don't help any more than my blunt advice. Your esteem building fake concern which offers nothing beyond best wishes and a prayer plus a welfare check ain't gonna give them a middle class lifestyle and is quite frankly coddling them with the same "you're a unique snowflake and should pursue whatever makes you happy" feelgood bullshit that's been force fed kids for the last generation.

 

[Zaap]

I can imagine you saying that to your son or daughter they deserve just that because they can't keep up with mine.

I imagine he (like most people) would do what he could to prepare his kids for the real world.

But if they *were* unprepared for it, what's the better thing to do? Deal with them truthfully about it, or blow rainbow smoke up their asses about how special they are just for existing and then send them out into a world that absolutely *WILL NOT* treat them that way?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Unless you plan on offering a job to those folks with no appreciable creative skills in a labor devalued economy, then your fancy words don't mean shit and certainly don't help any more than my blunt advice. Your esteem building fake concern which offers nothing beyond best wishes and a prayer plus a welfare check ain't gonna give them a middle class lifestyle and is quite frankly coddling them with the same "you're a unique snowflake and should pursue whatever makes you happy" feelgood bullshit that's been force fed kids for the last generation.

I touched a nerve I see. Your "blunt advice" is completely useless, but you assume you and yours will be somewhere on the top of the pile. I think not. The best thing you can offer is euthanasia as an alternative to poverty and you clearly are out of your intellectual depth in dealing with these issues. I never said "you're a unique snowflake and should pursue whatever makes you happy". Never. Know what? You aren't a unique snowflake. You are dirt under the heels of others who are better predators. I understand you dislike the lesser classes, but you don't seem to realize that ultimately that's what you will be. That's progress for you.

There, I've just spoken plainly. Does that make you feel better?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I imagine he (like most people) would do what he could to prepare his kids for the real world.

But if they *were* unprepared for it, what's the better thing to do? Deal with them truthfully about it, or blow rainbow smoke up their asses about how special they are just for existing and then send them out into a world that absolutely *WILL NOT* treat them that way?

Actually my children are prepared and will likely outcompete most out there. If mine eat his that's no loss in the grand scheme of thing, eh?

People seem to think that they'll do well because of thinking such as he displays, but all he offers is increasing hopelessness, and can't even imagine why it's bad much less consider the situation and offer more than sacrifices to his betters.

Now if the future were to be a dreary and inhumane place why should I support that paradigm? If wanna be sharks were half as intelligent as they think they might wonder why they do just that.

 

[Zaap]

This whole discussion is stuff that's been blathered about probably since the dawn of the industrial revolution. It's just that every generation imagines they are sitting at the pinnacle of technology and innovation and so they start in with this "there won't be any jobs!" fear.

I've personally been listening to neophytes wring their hands about "all these computers!" putting an end to jobs as we know them pretty much all my life.

To this day, I'm amazed at the number of people that can't fathom the difference between "I do my job using a computer" and "A computer does my job."

Meanwhile, the job I do (film editing) is now done by literally *millions* more people around the world than ever before, simply because the use of computers has made it so much easier, that it's economically/technically possible to do that much more of it.

You can edit a movie in your bedroom and make a living at it using equipment that cost a few hundred dollars, vs. even say 20 years ago when you'd have needed tens of thousands of dollars in equipment, much more specialized training and probably an entire studio apparatus. In response: more people make movies and make a living making them (to name but one thing of course) rather than the old fear that the same singular entities would make the same amount using super-computers to do all of the old-school jobs.

How many people were employed as computer programmers when the damn things cost millions and took up an entire warehouse, vs. today when a kid in his bedroom can be one? And yet when PCs first came along, the kvetching about "Ohhh noes those computers are gonna take all the jobs!!" was off the charts.

Someone here actually argued with me once that it'd be better to still employ a couple hundred thousand telephone switchboard operators than have an automated system that's created and enhanced literally MILLIONS more jobs with the creation of our modern internet-connected world... but no, let's wring our hands over a couple hundred thousand outdated jobs.

Worry about freakin' robots the day any of us routinely sees true humanoid robots walking the streets truly able to replace higher-level jobs that require problem solving, creativity and one-on-one people-skills. Until that day- it's literally a laughable thing to be worried about- about as ridiculous as fear of computers "doing all the jobs" as opposed to people "doing jobs WITH computers".

Relax Buck Rodgers, you don't get your flying car that you were supposed to have already either.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's all the same pattern. Technology makes things cheaper over time. The poor in this country are still incredibly well off by global and historical standards. What counted as manors at one point would be considered shabby derilics if a modern builder built it new for you.

The difference in wealth is growing, but overall levels of wealth has increased for everyone as costs have fallen. Part of this cost is the "waste" of labor, but forcing more labor into the process impoverishes everyone

And what is the "waste" of labor. Are we talking about folk who have no way to survive? Do we just let them die? All this talk of snowflakes strikes me as nothing but projection. You never see yourselves as the ones who are going to die. Your talents are so snowflake special. You will all be buried by people even more special than you, those who are the coldest and most emotionally dead, perhaps even by a machine. How very like them we are.

 

[Zaap]

Actually my children are prepared and will likely outcompete most out there. If mine eat his that's no loss in the grand scheme of thing, eh?

Sorry but I just see you make a lot of assumptions toward the negative, just because what he's saying isn't some "kindler/gentler, flowery" version of the exact same reality you also seem perfectly aware of. (If you weren't, you wouldn't worry about your kids actually being prepared to 'outcompete' someone else.)

 

[realibrad]

The problem many seem to have, is they are stuck in the current mindset of how the world is.

David Friedman gave a explanation of what he expects to happen, that I agree with. Slowly, there will be a transition where some goods/services become so cheap, they are given away for free as a way of marketing. An example of this is things like TV shows, or music over the radio. A TV show is given away for free, and the way they make money is by advertisements. Look at the internet, and you see the same thing. Youtube is filled with people giving away advice, and you tube pays the creator with advert revenue. The people get goods/services at a cost of almost zero. Society gets the benefit of the expansion of knowledge.

With more robots, other goods/services would likely follow this format.

The argument, is the eventual end, where all labor could be done without humans. This is an idea that seems logical, but really has no data to back it. This idea that there will be and end has popped up many times. Before Einstein, there was a growing belief that all of physics was pretty much known. He came a long and blew that out of the water. Even during Keynes era people expected that the work week would become shorter because the needs of man was being met with increasing efficiency. Everyone turns out to be wrong, but damn it if we dont keep saying, well next time.

The end is far more likely to look like a Star Trek type of life if we ever get to it. Work wont be needed, but there will always be something to do. When all labor can be done by machines, people will simply get their wishes filled easier. Like I said before, these things dont happen overnight. Look at computers. Competition has driven down the price of computers to the point where we have them in just about everything. Robots that do labor would likely be the same. Hell, even the poor have cell phones. Why would we thing that the poor masses that everyone seems to believe will be around would not be able to get a cheap robot.

 

[glenn1]

Actually my children are prepared and will likely outcompete most out there. If mine eat his that's no loss in the grand scheme of thing, eh?

People seem to think that they'll do well because of thinking such as he displays, but all he offers is increasing hopelessness, and can't even imagine why it's bad much less consider the situation and offer more than sacrifices to his betters.

Now if the future were to be a dreary and inhumane place why should I support that paradigm? If wanna be sharks were half as intelligent as they think they might wonder why they do just that.

I'm glad if your kids are as described, a couple less welfare cases and if they truly are out-competing others they deserve to enjoy the fruits of that. Instead you'd purposely look to knock them down a peg to ensure other kids who decide to put their brains in neutral and coast along in menial physical labor jobs don't have to not enjoy the fruits either. And LOL at you talking about "eating others" when people like you and Democrats will always be there to attempt to bail them out from their bad decisions so what difference does it make?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm glad if your kids are as described, a couple less welfare cases and if they truly are out-competing others they deserve to enjoy the fruits of that. Instead you'd purposely look to knock them down a peg to ensure other kids who decide to put their brains in neutral and coast along in menial physical labor jobs don't have to not enjoy the fruits either. And LOL at you talking about "eating others" when people like you and Democrats will always be there to attempt to bail them out from their bad decisions so what difference does it make?

Will I knock them down? Funny, I made sure they can get ahead and not look at other humans as food stuffs. They also know the difference between wanting to achieve and not. They also know there is no utopia, but that doesn't mean they are devoid of mercy and compassion. But you know I'll always bail out people who refuse to at least try to act responsibly. Well no. But in your world the value of a person is determined by their income. You mistake merit for wealth and you can't be manipulated, right? I just ate you.

 

[Greenman]

How are the Moties going to get to God's Eye?

They're already in God's eye, getting out was the issue. That was covered in "The Gripping Hand".

 

[Moonbeam]

It's all the same pattern. Technology makes things cheaper over time. The poor in this country are still incredibly well off by global and historical standards. What counted as manors at one point would be considered shabby derilics if a modern builder built it new for you.

The difference in wealth is growing, but overall levels of wealth has increased for everyone as costs have fallen. Part of this cost is the "waste" of labor, but forcing more labor into the process impoverishes everyone

As everything become cheaper and cheaper, the thing that remains to be cut is profit. As profit tends toward zero so would the number of wealthy. If you want to eat you won't be able to compete with a machine owned business it would seem to me.