There will never again be enough jobs...

Captain Adverse said:

You are both absolutely wrong.

It's like the old song "anything you can do." Only the lyrics modified to: "Anything you can do a Robot can do better; A Robot can do anything better than you." You are both limiting your view to simple automated devices. You forget the leaps and bound occurring in the areas of Artificial Intelligence and android research.

There is no limit to the capability of Artificial Intelligence (AI). A machine with sufficient independence of thought can replace every human in any job you believe such capability is necessary. Everyone thinks their skillset is irreplaceable, right up until that skillset becomes obsolete and they are replaced. Perhaps in the short-term your engineering and teaching examples remain relatively secure, but in the long-term? Not so much.

Meanwhile, our population continues to grow at an accelerated rate. All the education in the world is not going to help when you are still competing for fewer and fewer jobs in market glutted with over-educated competitors.

The problem is not that far off. In the last 100 years human science has advanced further than the prior 5000. It is not slowing down. It is entirely possible that within the next 25 years we will see the kinds of advances the if left unchecked will replace us all. What will society do then?

Click to expand...

I think, sir, you are correct. It seems to me that the opportunity for replacement by technology is higher in high paying jobs. Take for example jobs like accounting and actuarial jobs . Not too long ago these departments required large amounts of manpower with adding machines and #2 pencils. Today the same output can easily be accomplished on a laptop.

As these these high paying jobs disappear, more pressure will be put on the low end labor pool.

Dittohead not! said:

We do.

Which is why we need to address the things that need doing, and pay people a living wage to do them.

Click to expand...

The problem is that as the available labor pool becomes larger and the job pool becomes smaller, the trend on wages will be downward. No amount of wishful thinking will fix that.

Frank Apisa said:

Don't have to get rid of all of 'em for it to be a MAJOR problem, Roughdraft.

We already are at a point where we do not have enough of the decent paying jobs for the less skilled...and as the machines get more sophisticated...they will take more jobs up the sophistication ladder.

We are in trouble. Best to handle it before it gets completely out of hand.

Click to expand...

What he fails to understand is that while there will always be a few jobs left, at the very least "supervisory" (read monitors to make sure the A.I. managed androids are doing their jobs correctly), the vast majority of professional, technical, production, service, and general labor jobs will become obsolete. This will eventually include designer jobs, as A.I. becomes developed enough to design their own advancements.

Meanwhile the untold billions of average homo sapiens, no matter how highly educated, will be competing for the miniscule number of "supervisory" jobs available.

Captain Adverse said:

What he fails to understand is that while there will always be a few jobs left, at the very least "supervisory" (read monitors to make sure the A.I. managed androids are doing their jobs correctly), the vast majority of professional, technical, production, service, and general labor jobs will become obsolete. This will eventually include designer jobs, as A.I. becomes developed enough to design their own advancements.

Meanwhile the untold billions of average homo sapiens, no matter how highly educated, will be competing for the miniscule number of "supervisory" jobs available.

Click to expand...

completely agree

can you see a way were this could be a positive?

Frank Apisa said:

Don't have to get rid of all of 'em for it to be a MAJOR problem, Roughdraft.

We already are at a point where we do not have enough of the decent paying jobs for the less skilled...and as the machines get more sophisticated...they will take more jobs up the sophistication ladder.

We are in trouble. Best to handle it before it gets completely out of hand.

Click to expand...

Shipping jobs overseas is far more responsible for this problem than automation is.

_Sal said:

completely agree

can you see a way were this could be a positive?

Click to expand...

Well, if we come to realize that the profit motive will no longer be applicable, as least in it's current form, it is possible for us to embrace these changes as allowing us more leisure time to enjoy our existence.

As long as we have enough people willing to keep a wary eye on our AI servitors, (and a firm thumb over a shut-off switch so a Skynet scenario never occurs), the rest of us can explore space, or devote ourselves to arts and pure sciences. Not for profits, but simply for pure enjoyment.

The transition would involve some serious revolutionary thinking in terms of how our society should function. I don't think it will happen easily, since the profiteers don't think in such enlightened ways.

This is just a flight of fantasy, which is fine, and understandable, but it's not backed up by anything.

I think also it's easy to fantasize about areas you aren't that familiar with, they hold a certain mystery (robotics, programming, automation, etc.) Once you do get familiar with a particular industry, it kind of looks like every other industry, the magic is gone, and ideas like this look like fantasy (which is fine, and common, I do this all the time too).

In my experience with automation in engineering and software, the idea that it replaces everyone is just not reality. What is actually replacing U.S. jobs is overseas labor. Until that equilibrium is reached, there will be no market incentive to automate beyond what is necessary, which isn't all that much anyway. Automation is one tool in the spectrum of how we solve problems, produce, and service, and that tool also requires a lot of expertise and input, service, updating, etc., and likely for any serious advancement, has to be done "all over again".

Until we get to AI, this is far from a reality. If we do get to AI, then the bigger issues, since we're fantasizing, is Singularity. How far from AI to Singularity is it? It can't be that far (argument from ignorance).

So the answer is, if we do develop AI sufficient to replace us, we will build AI sufficient to replace us and propose this "problem" you are pondering on, and have IT come up with the most all around acceptable solution. (eradicate!!?)

Captain Adverse said:

Well, if we come to realize that the profit motive will no longer be applicable, as least in it's current form, it is possible for us to embrace these changes as allowing us more leisure time to enjoy our existence.

As long as we have enough people willing to keep a wary eye on our AI servitors, (and a firm thumb over a shut-off switch so a Skynet scenario never occurs), the rest of us can explore space, or devote ourselves to arts and pure sciences. Not for profits, but simply for pure enjoyment.

The transition would involve some serious revolutionary thinking in terms of how our society should function. I don't think it will happen easily, since the profiteers don't think in such enlightened ways.

Click to expand...

yes I was tending toward viewing only the positive since I think it would be an opportunity to move toward a more humanitarian, compassionate society but there are many ways it could all go wrong

Captain Adverse said:

What he fails to understand is that while there will always be a few jobs left, at the very least "supervisory" (read monitors to make sure the A.I. managed androids are doing their jobs correctly), the vast majority of professional, technical, production, service, and general labor jobs will become obsolete. This will eventually include designer jobs, as A.I. becomes developed enough to design their own advancements.

Meanwhile the untold billions of average homo sapiens, no matter how highly educated, will be competing for the miniscule number of "supervisory" jobs available.

Click to expand...

Yup.

Could be a big problem because of that.

But I want to just touch on the question Sal asks you in response.

Sal

One way it could be a "positive" is that as a result of more and more people "competing" for the skilled jobs...the skilled jobs will end up being performed by the very best we humans have to offer.

Actually...the same thing goes for the "unskilled" jobs. As more and more people compete for fewer and fewer jobs...at some point, every job that needs doing by humans will be handled by by the most competent, most productive humans.

That can be a huge positive.

I'm not going to get very deeply into this, because it will be the topic of a thread pretty far down the line in the step-by-step process.

For right now...the important thing to mention (the specific point of THIS thread) is that jobs that humans need to do are getting scarcer and scarcer.

Agreed?

roughdraft274 said:

Shipping jobs overseas is far more responsible for this problem than automation is.

Click to expand...

The reason they are shipped overseas...is that it is cost efficient.

As the machines become more efficient...they will be more cost efficient than the lowest paid workers in third world countries.

Third world workers will eventually become as prohibitively expensive as our workers are right now.

Dittohead not! said:

There is a lot that needs to be done that machines can't do. The teaching force needs to increase so that one person is not expected to control and teach 30 children at the same time. The national forests are overgrown and prone to wildfire, and must be thinned. When those fires break out, someone must put them out. Our roads and bridges need to be repaired, replaced, and upgraded. Levies built a century ago need to be repaired. There are trails to build and invasive species to eradicate.

The problem is, none of the above makes a profit for anyone, which is why it isn't already being done.

Click to expand...

I assume that we all benefit from it though. Something that is beneficial, but not profitable, should be done by the government. But wait, our government already does these things - just not to the full extent that they could be done beneficially. State and local governments don't fund these things because states and local governments have to tax to spend, and we only have so much tollarance for taxation.

Our federal government doesn't have to tax to spend though. So the only thing that prevents these types of things from being fully funded is federal government politics.

I've always wondered why we prefer to give people free money, rather than to pay them to do something useful. And every time that I suggest we get rid of means tested welfare entirely, and replace it with JOBS doing things of value, I always get attacked by conservatives. It seems to me that they should like the idea of eliminating welfare and replacing it with productive employment.

roughdraft274 said:

I would say they are slowly drying up.

I work in engineering and very little of the work going on in my office or out at the plants and refineries that we do work at can be automated. And everything that gets automated usually only makes things smoother, but not replacing any jobs.

There's not going to be as many jobs for low skilled workers. Now or in the future. That's why we need to train ad educate people and to fight for as many new jobs as possible.

Click to expand...

don't worry, long term, even the need for high skilled jobs will be decreased by technology.

When you say "smoother but not replacing", that either means that engineering jobs are becoming less stressful (thus they shouldn't command as high of a salary), or you are working less hours (and thus shouldnt command as high of a salary), or that more work is getting done by fewer people. Regardless which one of these options is correct, they all support the OP's idea.

Mach said:

This is just a flight of fantasy, which is fine, and understandable, but it's not backed up by anything.

I think also it's easy to fantasize about areas you aren't that familiar with, they hold a certain mystery (robotics, programming, automation, etc.) Once you do get familiar with a particular industry, it kind of looks like every other industry, the magic is gone, and ideas like this look like fantasy (which is fine, and common, I do this all the time too).

Click to expand...

Incorrect. It IS backed up by our human history of innovation. Every time a tool has been produced to make something more efficient it has changed the way society functions. Advances are made without concerns about the negative effects on society, only the advantages to those who profit from them. Take farming. Where once farming was labor intensive, each new advance has allowed fewer people to do more with the land so that now a couple of people can run farmland it once took dozens to handle and more to harvest.

The same holds true for industry. Where it once took many to produce an item, as factories became more automated jobs disappeared. (This where the owners went automated rather than taking the sweat-shop labor route by outsourcing overseas).

Mach said:

In my experience with automation in engineering and software, the idea that it replaces everyone is just not reality. What is actually replacing U.S. jobs is overseas labor. Until that equilibrium is reached, there will be no market incentive to automate beyond what is necessary, which isn't all that much anyway. Automation is one tool in the spectrum of how we solve problems, produce, and service, and that tool also requires a lot of expertise and input, service, updating, etc., and likely for any serious advancement, has to be done "all over again".

Click to expand...

Actually, this only because it is cheaper in the short-term to use sweat-shop labor than it is to automate. However, as technology advances to a point where tooling up will create (supposedly) long-term savings and increased profits even where it comes to cheap overseas labor, that trend will change and those teeming millions will find themselves out of work overseas too.

Mach said:

Until we get to AI, this is far from a reality. If we do get to AI, then the bigger issues, since we're fantasizing, is Singularity. How far from AI to Singularity is it? It can't be that far (argument from ignorance).

So the answer is, if we do develop AI sufficient to replace us, we will build AI sufficient to replace us and propose this "problem" you are pondering on, and have IT come up with the most all around acceptable solution. (eradicate!!?)

Click to expand...

I guess you don't watch much Star Trek do you? I remember when I was a kid and it first came on the air. How wonderful and exciting all those sci-fi gadgets were. Look back and count how many of those things mere fantasy 30 years ago have now become reality.

For a person who claims to be well-versed in modern technology it seems strange you overlook this, as well as all the current developments in robotics and Artificial Intelligence. The only thing that has ever served to hold back such advancements is the innate fear of lost profits by established corporate interests, who would prefer to control and limit a new advance until they can turn it to their own profit.

joG said:

You do know that that has been being predicted since Marx? ...

Click to expand...

And history has proven such predictions correct.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the average work week was 70 hours. By the end of the 20th century, it was down to 40 hours. That's a 30 hour reduction in the need for human labor. I see no reason why this trend won't continue into the 20th century, as a matter of fact, it actually has.

Now assuming that the rate of technology growth doesn't change in the 21st century (I expect that it will actually speed up), by the end of the 21st century, the average workweek may be as little as little as 10 hours per week - assuming that we spread work around instead of having fewer workers working just as long.

joG said:

That is exactly, what the US policy has been doing step by step since WW2. By allowing Americans to buy things from all around the world and produce things in any country they like, the number of jobs at "living wages" has gone up and up. This process has slowed American wage growth, but improved the standard of living for Americans at the same time.

Click to expand...

It hasn't improved the standard of living for the long term unemployed. And adjusted for inflation the low skilled worker has plummetted by 30% since the late 1960's.

joG said:

There will come a time, perhaps. Sorrily, we will probably all be dead by then.

Click to expand...

I don't know why. We've already been experiencing it. It's not something that we are just going to wake up to, it's something that is very gradual.

We need not be like the frog in cool water who gets boiled alive because we forget to jump out as the water warms.

Frank Apisa said:

I think "gaining mechanical advantage" IS a positive development...but all that will be handled in its turn.

For now, I am just interested in whether or not people agree with what was stated in the OP...and if there is disagreement...what that disagreement is.

Click to expand...

I totally agree.

The only people who are disagreeing are those who only see things for what they are now, they can't understand the past and they can't envision the future.

eohrnberger said:

I guess we'd all better plan to 'off' ourselves, or get used to living destitute lives then.
Or better yet, forcibly confiscate from those that have something, giving to those that don't.
I mean isn't this where all this is heading?

Click to expand...

Or maybe we just come up with an economic system that will work for everyone. but if you would prefer death to planning, so be it.

Captain Adverse said:

I guess you don't watch much Star Trek do you? I remember when I was a kid and it first came on the air. How wonderful and exciting all those sci-fi gadgets were. Look back and count how many of those things mere fantasy 30 years ago have now become reality.

Click to expand...

Amen.

I saw a guy a few months back who walked almost full speed into glass door. He just expected it to swoosh open like it always did for Captain Kirk (and often does for each of us)...and it failed.

Guy actually looked at the door like, "What the hell is he matter with you? Didn't you see me coming?"

imagep said:

Or maybe we just come up with an economic system that will work for everyone. but if you would prefer death to planning, so be it.

Click to expand...

This is so important, it needs to be said as loudly as possible.

So I'm shouting it!

roughdraft274 said:

What you added to your post changes nothing. It will be a slow encroachment on jobs. Not quick or fast paced at all. And the more automation we have, the more automation experts and supervisors we will need. And the more people installing and built these things we will need. I'm not saying that it's not going to happen, I'm just saying it's going to be slow sailing and that education and job training can limit the immediate effects of it for many many people. And that at no point in time will automation get rid of all jobs. That's like saying that all banks will get rid of employees because of internet banking and atm's. It's not reality.

Click to expand...

No one is saying that automation will get rid of all jobs, just many of them.

You don't see a problem with having a society where there are not enough decent wage jobs for every family to have one?

The way I see it, we will have to make one of these choices

• massive third world style poverty
• massive welfare state
• or come up with an economic system that will work for everyone when there isn't enough work for everyone

OrphanSlug said:

I am not asking you to let go of the "earn your keep" mentality, at least not today. I am asking you to consider the possibility that technology will take us in a direction where that thinking is obsolete. To the very point that human activity and interaction in the social and economic sense is not about basis in either capitalism or socialism.

It is not about some passive attempt to make everything free either, it is about the reality of an economic and social system that will be forced to adapt once we design systems replacing jobs at a rate where there is too much population in accordance with need for them to be "labor."

What is really unlikely is that we can keep an economic and social model that excludes too many as labor but expects that populace to still participate as product and services consumers.

Click to expand...

Frank Apisa said:

Isn't anything that does not follow what your masters dictate you must accept...always heading in the wrong direction, Eo?

Click to expand...

No, just being realistic.

Something cannot spring from nothing. It comes from something. Some effort expended, some resources consumed.

Since TANSTAAFL holds true, that effort and those resources aren't free, they cost money, or barter (if you are willing to live in an economic system from some 800 years ago).

Since you've pretty much given up on the human race (and their innovation and imagination), and as you've posted "There will never again be enough jobs..." (enough good jobs), then you've pretty much condemned everyone to living in destitution, without enough income to be able to pay for their 'sufficient' (still not a clearly defined term).

OR

The government comes by and confiscates from those that have anything to give to those that don't (which is my suspicion that you want to have happen from the git go - believing that with the government bully on your side, with this ill-defined notion of 'sufficient', to salve your conscious in some way at this bullying).

I think it far more likely that humans will continue to innovate, come up with new 'gotta have' things to sell each other,
OR
they'll adapt to working on things that the machines can't produce, can't do - even if it's temporary,
OR
they'll adopt legislation that will curb the implementation of machines that replace human workers

Or maybe they'll do all three?

Point being, I think your assertion to the future isn't going to come to pass.

imagep said:

Or maybe we just come up with an economic system that will work for everyone. but if you would prefer death to planning, so be it.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

...Isn't that better than mass suicide?

Click to expand...

Until you run out of other people's money. Then what?

I don't think it'll ever come to that, and this was my reaction to Frank and his dismal predictions of the future.

Frank Apisa said:

...uhhh...lemme rephrase that first thought:

It is my opinion there will never, ever again, be enough decent-paying jobs available for all the people who need and/or want one. Never, ever again. Not in our country—nor anywhere else in the world. Free market dynamics will not produce them—nor will any president, congress, or legislative agenda either. The days when it makes sense to pay humans a living wage to do things that machines, robots, and computers can do more efficiently; at a greater rate of productivity; and at less cost than for humans—are over. They are a thing of the past and will NEVER return.

The reason I’ve stressed that point as much as I have—is to emphasize my next point, which is: We all really have to come to grips with that reality—and our leaders have to lead in a direction that takes this new economic fact of life into account—something that simply is NOT being done.

We are collectively in denial about it. We keep talking about re-training people or about “creating jobs”—we argue about how best to retain jobs now being out-sourced to relatively cheap labor overseas and refuse to recognize that robots, computers, and other machines will one day very soon make even those sources seem prohibitively expensive.

And make no mistake about it, folks, any job for which an efficient machine exists or can be devised—which includes the vast preponderance of all medium skill manufacturing jobs, eventually will be given over to machines for the doing. Anything less, like keeping the jobs open for humans just because we need jobs, is purposefully subverting productivity—which makes no sense.


(This is part 3 of the "observations of the human predicament" series I am attempting.)

Click to expand...

What you're in denial about is your education system is at least two decades behind the times. There are jobs that go wanting all around the world, but you need either a trade or a degree. While Europe, Canada, Australia, India and China have been turning out technicians and so forth, in the US more than one third of high school graduates are not educated enough to make it into trade school, let alone university.

Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Boeing etc. ALL have special permits to import immigrants to get workers. I doubt there is a hospital in the country that hasn't invited foreign nurses and technicians. Thus, those high school 'grads' go without or work at McJobs. An the American liberal's idea to fix that is to raise the wages for them.

A must see film: "Superman Isn't Coming"

imagep said:

No one is saying that automation will get rid of all jobs, just many of them.

You don't see a problem with having a society where there are not enough decent wage jobs for every family to have one?

The way I see it, we will have to make one of these choices

• massive third world style poverty
• massive welfare state
• or come up with an economic system that will work for everyone when there isn't enough work for everyone

Click to expand...

Interesting. Only three choices and none of them involves improving education so Americans can compete on an international scale...

pdog said:

I don't disagree...where all other variables are unchanged. The question is why are all of the other variables unchanged?. This is a matter of efficiency and we continue to improve in terms of efficiency every year. So why hasn't the work week shortened in almost 100 years? Why is the standard level of education still 12 years?

I guess im saying that rather than progress to a time where we fight over the very last jobs, why are we not progressing to something that's less work and more enlightenment?

Click to expand...

It's not all of a sudden. No one suggested that.

It's something that has been slowly happening for centuries, but the effects of it haven't been as noticeable because we are making more technological progress in a single year now than what we did in any century prior to the 20th century.

So instead of being able to adjust over a period of many generations, we are having to adjust to the same amount of technology change over a period of months. It just seems like it's "all of a sudden" compared to the past.

What we don't want is to ignore this issue, and let it creep up on us, and then suddenly wonder where our jobs have gone and why there is mass starvation.