Technological unemployment is (almost) here - page 3.

cellard

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1252

Quote from: Possum577 on June 21, 2015, 03:03:23 AM

Quote from: dancupid on October 25, 2013, 01:04:36 PM

Automation will just make things cheaper, so people will need less money and just need to work less.
If the automation doesn't make things cheaper then how will all these people without jobs be able to afford the products created by this automation? How will this automation survive economically?

These problems are always resolved automatically and naturally by market forces.

aside:
Unemployment is an artificially created situation used by governments to keep the employment market competitive and wages low.
It's easy to solve n% unemployment if you want to - just make everyone work n% less and thus create n% more work.

Making things cheaper doesn't mean they will be sold for cheaper. Usually the difference becomes greater profit for companies. And next year's profit always needs to be more than today's profit, otherwise manager's lose their jobs.

E.g., automation has been added to the manufacture of cars for decades, has the cost of cars gone down over decades? No, the cost has gone up...and up...and up.

By your equation to solve 7% of unemployment we just need to make everyone work 7% less and thus create 7% more work. That math doesn't actually add up, want to try again? Explain to us how solving unemployment is so simple.

Because they want maximum profit. They want to pay their workers next to peanuts while charging more. The next natural step is to kick the workers and put machines that will not complain about getting a low wage or get sick and need healthcare, and keep charging to the same guaranteeing only the wealthy can afford it. Capitalism as we know it will eat itself out until exhaustion.

Possum577

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Loose lips sink sigs!

Quote from: dancupid on October 25, 2013, 01:04:36 PM

Automation will just make things cheaper, so people will need less money and just need to work less.
If the automation doesn't make things cheaper then how will all these people without jobs be able to afford the products created by this automation? How will this automation survive economically?

These problems are always resolved automatically and naturally by market forces.

aside:
Unemployment is an artificially created situation used by governments to keep the employment market competitive and wages low.
It's easy to solve n% unemployment if you want to - just make everyone work n% less and thus create n% more work.

Making things cheaper doesn't mean they will be sold for cheaper. Usually the difference becomes greater profit for companies. And next year's profit always needs to be more than today's profit, otherwise manager's lose their jobs.

E.g., automation has been added to the manufacture of cars for decades, has the cost of cars gone down over decades? No, the cost has gone up...and up...and up.

By your equation to solve 7% of unemployment we just need to make everyone work 7% less and thus create 7% more work. That math doesn't actually add up, want to try again? Explain to us how solving unemployment is so simple.

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: edric on June 18, 2015, 12:23:47 PM

Quote from: dancupid on October 25, 2013, 01:04:36 PM

Automation will just make things cheaper, so people will need less money and just need to work less.
If the automation doesn't make things cheaper then how will all these people without jobs be able to afford the products created by this automation? How will this automation survive economically?

These problems are always resolved automatically and naturally by market forces.

aside:
Unemployment is an artificially created situation used by governments to keep the employment market competitive and wages low.
It's easy to solve n% unemployment if you want to - just make everyone work n% less and thus create n% more work.

Do you really think that automated machines going to get cheaper? There is new technology coming out everyday. And every new technology starts from higher prices. Eventually there prices comes down, but only when there is a another new machine to replace it.

And unemployment is a problem, and a big one. What do you call jobless people as? Those people who are going for interviews everyday, clearing the interviews and still not getting selected as the positions are few. What do you call those people who are being replaced by machines and they have to sit at home jobless?

You're quoting post from 2013, author of which has been inactive for over half year. Don't expect a reply.

He didn't say machines will be cheaper, but that machines will make things cheaper, which is correct.
He didn't say unemployment is not a problem, but he pointed at possible solutions. Not entirely bad one, but rather ineffective and temporary imo.

edric

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 501

Quote from: dancupid on October 25, 2013, 01:04:36 PM

Automation will just make things cheaper, so people will need less money and just need to work less.
If the automation doesn't make things cheaper then how will all these people without jobs be able to afford the products created by this automation? How will this automation survive economically?

These problems are always resolved automatically and naturally by market forces.

aside:
Unemployment is an artificially created situation used by governments to keep the employment market competitive and wages low.
It's easy to solve n% unemployment if you want to - just make everyone work n% less and thus create n% more work.

Do you really think that automated machines going to get cheaper? There is new technology coming out everyday. And every new technology starts from higher prices. Eventually there prices comes down, but only when there is a another new machine to replace it.

And unemployment is a problem, and a big one. What do you call jobless people as? Those people who are going for interviews everyday, clearing the interviews and still not getting selected as the positions are few. What do you call those people who are being replaced by machines and they have to sit at home jobless?

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

Quote from: josephliton on June 17, 2015, 01:53:04 PM

The faster the rate of the technological progress, the larger the portion of the labor force that is in this transitional state. Also, when technology eliminates a whole job category there is often a period of education for the jobs that remain. What is lost in much of the contemporary discourse is this ephemeral nature of technological unemployment. Keynes did not condemn 'technical efficiency' but rather posited that it could happen too quickly.

The jobs that remain will be at high demand, and competition too high for everyone to fit in.
As technology advances, the requirements to do a job will be increasingly intellectually higher, and the bast majority aren't cut to deal with that, that's why we are headed towards a point of no return when it comes to permanent unemployment.

neurotypical

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 503

Quote from: pawel7777 on June 17, 2015, 05:45:24 PM

Quote from: mackbells on June 17, 2015, 02:02:14 PM

It is indeed wrong to assume that the mere replacement of existing forms of human labor by machines will lead to technological unemployment, but if the technology driving that replacement is advancing at a rapid rate; if it is built on a technological infrastructure that allows for “winner takes all” markets; and if ultimately it could lead to the development of human-like androids, then there is indeed reason to think that technological unemployment could happen. Since this will lead to a significant restructuring of human society, we should think seriously about its implications.

Human-like androids are just a fantasy, there's no economical reason to build such unless for pure amusement. i.e. you won't see an army of androids sitting at the desks staring at monitors and typing on keyboards, you'll rather see a piece of software that can do the same at close to zero operating cost.

But human-like robots are good for the sake of discussion. Ultimately, if it is possible to develop robots who outperform humans both on physical and intellectual level, then the need for human-labour will almost entirely disappear.

Any sort of IA or human like robots aren't needed to get rid of most jobs today. The human-like robots will come handy when they automate services like hotel receptionist. In Japan there is an hotel that works with human-like robots only, imagine how many potential jobs got lost there and imagine when it goes worldwide.

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: mackbells on June 17, 2015, 02:02:14 PM

It is indeed wrong to assume that the mere replacement of existing forms of human labor by machines will lead to technological unemployment, but if the technology driving that replacement is advancing at a rapid rate; if it is built on a technological infrastructure that allows for “winner takes all” markets; and if ultimately it could lead to the development of human-like androids, then there is indeed reason to think that technological unemployment could happen. Since this will lead to a significant restructuring of human society, we should think seriously about its implications.

Human-like androids are just a fantasy, there's no economical reason to build such unless for pure amusement. i.e. you won't see an army of androids sitting at the desks staring at monitors and typing on keyboards, you'll rather see a piece of software that can do the same at close to zero operating cost.

But human-like robots are good for the sake of discussion. Ultimately, if it is possible to develop robots who outperform humans both on physical and intellectual level, then the need for human-labour will almost entirely disappear.

techgeek

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: pereira4 on June 17, 2015, 02:42:01 PM

Quote from: Sourgummies on June 16, 2015, 06:01:05 PM

Quote from: pereira4 on June 16, 2015, 05:53:19 PM

While I am all about automation, I think autonomous cars are insane and I will never get in one as long as I live. My hearse can be self driving and I will not much care then, but otherwise forget it. The only way this will make things safer for people is if human driven cars are banned from public roads because these cars work well together, but do not mix with human driving.

There really is no issue with that thinking,you die and the next generation sees it as norm. Pretty much how the world works,take flying in a plane for example.

Yeah no thanks, i'll let you do the testing. Meanwhile i'll go with logic: Automated cars + human driven cars don't mix up well. That's my theory and im sticking with it. As soon as automated cars are all over the place with mixed cars i'll stop using my car, sell it and use public transport.

Sounds pretty much a safe route as well.

Its better to still rely on someones common sense to drive then expect to avoid possible accidents based on a automation.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: mackbells on June 17, 2015, 02:02:14 PM

It is indeed wrong to assume that the mere replacement of existing forms of human labor by machines will lead to technological unemployment, but if the technology driving that replacement is advancing at a rapid rate; if it is built on a technological infrastructure that allows for “winner takes all” markets; and if ultimately it could lead to the development of human-like androids, then there is indeed reason to think that technological unemployment could happen. Since this will lead to a significant restructuring of human society, we should think seriously about its implications.

what you're atalking about is something that it will not happen before a very distante future, there is no reason to talk about that, unless you have a way to stay alive until then without being too old also

but we are already leading there, automation is growing each decade at least and it will grow as a even faster rate in the future

i'm all for it if we can earn without doing nothing, and the machines will work for us, in the sense that you can buy a robot that work for you

but the reaility will be actually different, probably akin to I Robot(that movie was great btw)

pereira4

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1183

Quote from: Sourgummies on June 16, 2015, 06:01:05 PM

Quote from: pereira4 on June 16, 2015, 05:53:19 PM

While I am all about automation, I think autonomous cars are insane and I will never get in one as long as I live. My hearse can be self driving and I will not much care then, but otherwise forget it. The only way this will make things safer for people is if human driven cars are banned from public roads because these cars work well together, but do not mix with human driving.

There really is no issue with that thinking,you die and the next generation sees it as norm. Pretty much how the world works,take flying in a plane for example.

Yeah no thanks, i'll let you do the testing. Meanwhile i'll go with logic: Automated cars + human driven cars don't mix up well. That's my theory and im sticking with it. As soon as automated cars are all over the place with mixed cars i'll stop using my car, sell it and use public transport.

mackbells

full member

Activity: 125

Merit: 100

It is indeed wrong to assume that the mere replacement of existing forms of human labor by machines will lead to technological unemployment, but if the technology driving that replacement is advancing at a rapid rate; if it is built on a technological infrastructure that allows for “winner takes all” markets; and if ultimately it could lead to the development of human-like androids, then there is indeed reason to think that technological unemployment could happen. Since this will lead to a significant restructuring of human society, we should think seriously about its implications.

mrhelpful

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Lauda on May 30, 2015, 02:04:53 PM

Quote from: oblivi on May 30, 2015, 01:51:04 PM

You need to stop treating Milton Friedman as some sort of godsent know it all guy that defined the be all end all of economics. It's over. Repeat with me: It's over. Automation will reach a point of no return, where it will be simply unnecessary for the majority of people to work, because you'll have an higher quality of life accepting welfare/supply from the machines than trying to pick up a job, ANY job, even if it's unnecessary. No one will pay you to do an unnecessary job. Entrepreneurs are a minority. And the majority of workforce are simple tasks and those will be the first ones that disappear. There will be a time when we don't even need more machines, so "trying to compete with your own machines so to speak", will be just silly.

What we need to end this "the rich will own all the machines" bullshit is simply have decentralized, open source machines that supply people with what they need, and everyone is free to improve upon them. Automation and technology will make any monetary based system deprecated in the following 1000 years.

If we are still half retarded uneducated monkeys bashing each other in 1000 years, we'll be fucked.

You're definitely right and I agree. I do not understand how some of us see some weird magical world in 50 years. Anyone will rather spend a certain sum of money for a robot that is equal to a yearly payment of a worker. Probably event more, because after that point (you've reached ROI), you just pay for the electricity. At first there will be new jobs, indeed. There will be a larger demand for people putting those robots together, designing them and maintaining them, however only for a certain period of time.
Once we actually pass the Turing, there won't be a coming back. What happens when robots start maintaining and fixing other robots? What happens when robots start building robots?
The majority of jobs will be lost. I'm pretty sure that IT personnel, doctors and a few other titles will remain intact for a longer period of time.
However in the future, society needs to adapt. Working to survive will no longer be feasible.

Please don't go deeply into futuristic economies, that's rather for the speculation sub forum.

We all are deliusional at some levels, some maybe more drastic then others.

But, reaslitically 50 years? what about before we even get to 50 years lol. Theres so many events that can happen during the 50 years, and I can probably die from a car accident god forbid, but its realistic since most arent aware they can be gone before they can enjoy their bitcoin.

josephliton

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

The faster the rate of the technological progress, the larger the portion of the labor force that is in this transitional state. Also, when technology eliminates a whole job category there is often a period of education for the jobs that remain. What is lost in much of the contemporary discourse is this ephemeral nature of technological unemployment. Keynes did not condemn 'technical efficiency' but rather posited that it could happen too quickly.

Sourgummies

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Never ending parties are what Im into.

Quote from: pereira4 on June 16, 2015, 05:53:19 PM

While I am all about automation, I think autonomous cars are insane and I will never get in one as long as I live. My hearse can be self driving and I will not much care then, but otherwise forget it. The only way this will make things safer for people is if human driven cars are banned from public roads because these cars work well together, but do not mix with human driving.

There really is no issue with that thinking,you die and the next generation sees it as norm. Pretty much how the world works,take flying in a plane for example.

pereira4

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1183

While I am all about automation, I think autonomous cars are insane and I will never get in one as long as I live. My hearse can be self driving and I will not much care then, but otherwise forget it. The only way this will make things safer for people is if human driven cars are banned from public roads because these cars work well together, but do not mix with human driving.

xavi21

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 0

One major difference from the Industrial Revolution in England is that England had large (often captive) external markets. Unless the Pleiadeans want to buy your structured finance products and get manicures, in a flat global world, that just isn't true any more. Robots immigrate freely.

The major reason to keep the masses liquid is to uphold demand. But consumption levels today already press resource limits: Supporting consumption requires increasing resource efficiency; without a huge efficiency boost, the masses will be liquidated. Thus technological unemployment is strictly required in order to avoid mass poverty. How liquidity will flow to the unemployed remains to be seen. Classic patterns are less and less applicable as services are saturated and automated.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: jubalix on June 14, 2015, 10:32:18 PM

my $200 robot vaccum cleaner has left me un employed from a lot of vacuuming....however it does require some maintenance/care, and cannot pick somethings up as well as the push upright dyson. However it can cover alot more area than I can as it does all the edges and does not get bored.

This tech will improve.

I enjoy to vaccum and dig in the yard, build stuff though...sometimes.....so maybe it will become like running is now, a recreational fitness thing

When a robot can do dishwashing and hanging up the clothes.....

technologically unemployed house husband ... sounds depressing, only made worse when you realise robo-vacuums are great until the cat gets diarrhea !!

jubalix

legendary

Activity: 2618

Merit: 1022

my $200 robot vaccum cleaner has left me un employed from a lot of vacuuming....however it does require some maintenance/care, and cannot pick somethings up as well as the push upright dyson. However it can cover alot more area than I can as it does all the edges and does not get bored.

This tech will improve.

I enjoy to vaccum and dig in the yard, build stuff though...sometimes.....so maybe it will become like running is now, a recreational fitness thing

When a robot can do dishwashing and hanging up the clothes.....

neurotypical

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 503

Quote from: Lauda on May 30, 2015, 02:04:53 PM

Quote from: oblivi on May 30, 2015, 01:51:04 PM

You need to stop treating Milton Friedman as some sort of godsent know it all guy that defined the be all end all of economics. It's over. Repeat with me: It's over. Automation will reach a point of no return, where it will be simply unnecessary for the majority of people to work, because you'll have an higher quality of life accepting welfare/supply from the machines than trying to pick up a job, ANY job, even if it's unnecessary. No one will pay you to do an unnecessary job. Entrepreneurs are a minority. And the majority of workforce are simple tasks and those will be the first ones that disappear. There will be a time when we don't even need more machines, so "trying to compete with your own machines so to speak", will be just silly.

What we need to end this "the rich will own all the machines" bullshit is simply have decentralized, open source machines that supply people with what they need, and everyone is free to improve upon them. Automation and technology will make any monetary based system deprecated in the following 1000 years.

If we are still half retarded uneducated monkeys bashing each other in 1000 years, we'll be fucked.

You're definitely right and I agree. I do not understand how some of us see some weird magical world in 50 years. Anyone will rather spend a certain sum of money for a robot that is equal to a yearly payment of a worker. Probably event more, because after that point (you've reached ROI), you just pay for the electricity. At first there will be new jobs, indeed. There will be a larger demand for people putting those robots together, designing them and maintaining them, however only for a certain period of time.
Once we actually pass the Turing, there won't be a coming back. What happens when robots start maintaining and fixing other robots? What happens when robots start building robots?
The majority of jobs will be lost. I'm pretty sure that IT personnel, doctors and a few other titles will remain intact for a longer period of time.
However in the future, society needs to adapt. Working to survive will no longer be feasible.

Please don't go deeply into futuristic economies, that's rather for the speculation sub forum.

It doesn't take passing Turing. Good old automation improved x100 times, more precise, less prone to failure, and improved solar panels, geothermal energy.. it will be near sustainable (minus the obvious tear and wear which is as far as I know impossible to remove due termodynamics) but efficiency and constant improvement in technique and materials used could make an automatic factory that can be producing excellent products for 100 years without failure. So there you go, with time, we will need less and less repairmen not because some super intelligent robots can repair each other, but just because the automation robots (no IA involved) are so good and efficient that it takes ages for a failure to appear. It's all a big ticking clock with constant perpetual unemployment racking up.

muhrohmat

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

im not too good in economics and this is very dens for me but the fact that machines could turn into intelegent we need a main contol like in terminators or something to be able to live happly with robots and the control of them its the key that for future for now the machins dont tkae more than 20% labor work of low knowlege workers i guess (knowlage workers are highly needed still)

Topic: Technological unemployment is (almost) here - page 3. (Read 88255 times)