There will never again be enough jobs...

calamity said:

Automation will definitely lower demand for workers. Yep. I agree. Not sure I see it as the end of the world or anything like that. But, it will definitely shift power away from labor and into the hands of capital.

Click to expand...

Does labor even have any more power to be shifted to capital? Shift any more, and labor will have zero power.

jimbo said:

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.

Click to expand...

and as wages decrease, so will the middle classes ability to save and invest. the middle class will be eliminated, and there will be just two classes of people, the poor and the owners of the means of production. the masses will have no value to the rich at all.

roughdraft274 said:

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

Click to expand...

Sure, but if it wasn't for our ability to outsource to cheaper labor, automation would have been even faster.

And overseas outsourcing is very much like a machine to the rich.

imagep said:

Does labor even have any more power to be shifted to capital? Shift any more, and labor will have zero power.

Click to expand...

Pretty much true. A few highly-skilled positions still have an ability to call their own shots, but those are few and far between. These days, no one has a real lock on an employer; and most employers are one bad deal away from being out of business too, if you look at it fairly. Too big to fail is a minority situation. Most companies are being squeezed by competition and a fickle buying public.

I'm in a somewhat high technology industry. In the past, we'd have two dozen engineers and draftsmen working in teams to design products for a half-dozen reliable customers. We could bring in high school graduates for the grunt work, and young college grads for more demanding positions. The reliable customers worked with us, forgave mistakes and often did not look too closely at the final price.

These days, we have three or four engineers using computer systems to design products we sell to over two dozen customers who come and go depending solely on the price. If my company makes a bad decision, like investing in the wrong computer systems and software or developing the wrong products, we cannot charge enough on our other goods to make up the loss. We also cannot afford to hire inexperienced people to train and let learn from their mistakes. That's not to say we do not try now and then.

I sometimes wish I worked in the defense industry though.

imagep said:

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

Click to expand...

I've never even hinted at anything like this.

imagep said:

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.

Click to expand...

For ****s sake I don't know how else to explain this.

Automation is replacing SOME jobs. I don't think it is replacing them at an incredibly rapid pace as has been claimed. And that we should look at options in order to increase good jobs for people.

I have not claimed that it is not replacing any jobs. And I've never claimed that it will never replace some high skilled jobs. But I think that' further out from reality than most people are thinking. If you would have asked people in the 80's or 90's if we would be driving flying cars or hover boards or jetpacks by this time you would have gotten a resounding yes.

The technology is being created at break neck pace, but actually putting it in to use and making it capable of being an affordable alternative to actual workers is a very incremental game.

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).

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!!?)

Click to expand...

Replacement of human labor by technology will become a problem regardless of AI.

The BMW plant near me produce more cars per year than any GM plant did back in the '50s and '60s, but with a fraction of the workforce. Some of those plants had tens of thousands of human workers. the BMW plant has a bunch of robots and just 5,000 humans.

Most jobs don't really require that much intellegence. Have you never been to a McDonalds?

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...

Being the great philosophical thinker I am, I see a forth choice.

At some point, technology will be able to reproduce itself from mining the ore to transporting itself to it's final destination, and to constantly improve itself. At that point there will be no need for human labor at all. Robots will then come up with two possibilities:

Robots will conclude that humans have no value, or robots will exist only to assist humans. If the former, it's bye bye species. If the latter, humans will then be free to engage in other activities. I suspect that too often that activity will be nothing at all.

jimbo said:

Being the great philosophical thinker I am, I see a forth choice.

At some point, technology will be able to reproduce itself from mining the ore to transporting itself to it's final destination, and to constantly improve itself. At that point there will be no need for human labor at all. Robots will then come up with two possibilities:

Robots will conclude that humans have no value, or robots will exist only to assist humans. If the former, it's bye bye species. If the latter, humans will then be free to engage in other activities. I suspect that too often that activity will be nothing at all.

Click to expand...

I agreed with so much of what you were saying...it was very disappointing to come to that last sentence.

Let me ask you a question:

If YOU suddenly came into a position which would allow you freedom from the need to work in order to survive...would you do "nothing at all?"

Would you not be able to fill your time with lots of interesting things?

Or even "not interesting things"...but things that should be tended to?

Would you not be able to find things you WANT TO DO...rather than having to do what you must do in order "to earn a living?"

And if you think you would be able to find LOTS to do...why do you suppose most would no nothing?

imagep said:

Replacement of human labor by technology will become a problem regardless of AI.

The BMW plant near me produce more cars per year than any GM plant did back in the '50s and '60s, but with a fraction of the workforce. Some of those plants had tens of thousands of human workers. the BMW plant has a bunch of robots and just 5,000 humans.

Click to expand...

Are you saying you included the entire supply chain for the robots in that number?
Did you account for how many new job industries there are today, vs the 50's and 60's? They did not evaporate, people now do other things.

I heard a quote of something like 65% of jobs when kids get out of school will be doing job titles that DO NOT EXIST TODAY. We can't wrap our heads around it because it's an unknown.

Most jobs don't really require that much intelligence. Have you never been to a McDonalds?

Click to expand...

Not lately.
But have you programmed "simple intelligence" lately? It's deceptively complex, and unless you make it even dramatically MORE complex than that, people will HATE interfacing with it.

Frank Apisa said:

I agreed with so much of what you were saying...it was very disappointing to come to that last sentence.

Let me ask you a question:

If YOU suddenly came into a position which would allow you freedom from the need to work in order to survive...would you do "nothing at all?"

Would you not be able to fill your time with lots of interesting things?

Or even "not interesting things"...but things that should be tended to?

Would you not be able to find things you WANT TO DO...rather than having to do what you must do in order "to earn a living?"

And if you think you would be able to find LOTS to do...why do you suppose most would no nothing?

Click to expand...

Possibly, I would find more interesting things to do. I'm retired and do less than I did when I was working. Possibly not. I do know quite a few retired people both ways.

The same is true of other groups who have no need to work. A few go on to greater things. Many do very little.

Frank Apisa said:

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.

Click to expand...

Never, never ever ever?



You, uh, did notice that the US added 14 million jobs between 2010 and 2015? That unemployment is down, and wages are slightly up? That most of the growth in LFPR is due to people staying in school longer or retiring, rather than giving up on job searches?

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.

Click to expand...

Uhm.... yeah... about that

There are a lot of fields where automation is a long, long way off. Fields expecting big job growth include health care, professional services, construction, leisure, state governments, finance, and education. Fields expected to lose jobs are ones already losing them -- agriculture, manufacturing, federal government.

Automation also doesn't necessarily eliminate jobs. For example, automation is now able to sift through boxes of legal documents during the discovery phase. Rather than wipe out legions of paralegals, it encouraged law firms to engage in more discovery, and freed up resources that were bogged down in rote and meaningless tasks.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure they will get right on it.

Unsurprisingly, there are think tanks talking about it. Brookings, McKinsey, Heritage, Cato, the list goes on. Atlantic ran a piece on it, I'm sure I can find articles across the spectrum on the topic, if I were sufficiently motivated. You might want to do a little research before making such grand categorical pronouncements.

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.

Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, most of those low- and medium-skill jobs are already gone. That's been happening for decades. Manufacturing only takes up about 10% of the labor force today.

Anything less, like keeping the jobs open for humans just because we need jobs, is purposefully subverting productivity—which makes no sense.

Click to expand...

...unless you want to sacrifice a certain degree of efficiency in the name of equity (fairness). That tradeoff is Microeconomics 101. Literally.

It's also a bit odd that you seem to value productivity over the humans that would use said products. From the perspective of humans, it might not be all that bad. One possibility is that similar to how Germany handles layoffs, the number of hours worked a day for many professions might fall. Another is that we'd be able to generate so much surplus, that we can redistribute a basic and decent standard of living to all.

Or, it's entirely plausible that we'll just adapt, and find other types of work to do. We could have more artists, actors, teachers, surfers, athletes, all sorts of stuff that isn't critical for day-to-day survival.

Instead of optimis, we get declinism, pessimism, fear, uncertainty, doubt. Must be Monday.

Fearandloathing said:

... An the American liberal's idea to fix that is to raise the wages for them....

Click to expand...

Thats not unreasonable since the wage that we pay our lowest level of workers is 30% less than it was in the late 1970's.

But you do have a valid point about needing better k-12 education. Every time that those danged liberals try to do something to improve the education system, conservatives start complaining that its a waste of money or that it won't work. The republican party has become the anti-education party in the US.

eohrnberger said:

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

Click to expand...

The federal government can never run out of money. The government ISSUES money, and can issue an amount limited only by inflation. Money never gets "used up", unless it is taxed away and the government fails to spend it back into circulation.

Anyhow, assuming that most of our population will eventually by jobless and income-less, no one will have money because companies won't have enough customers to stay in business.

Fearandloathing said:

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

Click to expand...

Education is certainly part of the fix, but it's a fairly small part. Conservatives tell me that liberal arts degrees are worthless, and not everyone is capable of becoming a competent engineer or doctor.

But even if everyone got a a Doctorate today, we already don't have enough high level jobs to employ everyone in one of those jobs.

roughdraft274 said:

For ****s sake I don't know how else to explain this.

Automation is replacing SOME jobs. I don't think it is replacing them at an incredibly rapid pace as has been claimed. And that we should look at options in order to increase good jobs for people.

I have not claimed that it is not replacing any jobs. And I've never claimed that it will never replace some high skilled jobs. But I think that' further out from reality than most people are thinking. If you would have asked people in the 80's or 90's if we would be driving flying cars or hover boards or jetpacks by this time you would have gotten a resounding yes.

The technology is being created at break neck pace, but actually putting it in to use and making it capable of being an affordable alternative to actual workers is a very incremental game.

Click to expand...

Some jobs last year, some more this year, some more next year, pretty soon automation has replaced a heck of a lot of jobs.

jimbo said:

Being the great philosophical thinker I am, I see a forth choice.

At some point, technology will be able to reproduce itself from mining the ore to transporting itself to it's final destination, and to constantly improve itself. At that point there will be no need for human labor at all. Robots will then come up with two possibilities:

Robots will conclude that humans have no value, or robots will exist only to assist humans. If the former, it's bye bye species. If the latter, humans will then be free to engage in other activities. I suspect that too often that activity will be nothing at all.

Click to expand...

The scenario you are describing is the same thing I am talking about. I'm just describing it in economic terms.

For your second option to happen, people must have a form of income. We can't be free to engage in other activities (even if that activity is nothing), unless we have food, shelter, healthcare, transportation, etc. These things will have to be either free, or we will have to find some way other than work to provide incomes. that's why I am saying we will need to come up with an economic system that will work for everyone.

Frank Apisa said:

I agreed with so much of what you were saying...it was very disappointing to come to that last sentence.

Let me ask you a question:

If YOU suddenly came into a position which would allow you freedom from the need to work in order to survive...would you do "nothing at all?"

Would you not be able to fill your time with lots of interesting things?

Or even "not interesting things"...but things that should be tended to?

Would you not be able to find things you WANT TO DO...rather than having to do what you must do in order "to earn a living?"

And if you think you would be able to find LOTS to do...why do you suppose most would no nothing?

Click to expand...

We are all different, so I am sure that different people will make different choices.

Some of us will keep busy with Arts or Sports. Others will engage in research. Some us will do nothing at all for others and will just concentrate in pleasuring ourselves, or vegetating like a potato. It won't particularly effect me what someone else does, so if they decide to do nothing but watch to all day, it will be no sweat off my back.

imagep said:

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

Click to expand...

Just FYI: That's a myth. Frogs will eventually jump out of water before it injures them.

I think what is missing here is some historical reference.
Since the advent of the printing press, and it's ability to store and spread knowledge
on a wholesale level, Technology has been improving the Human condition.
Each advance allowed more free time, which people used to improve and invent
yet more labor saving devices.
Humans seem to continue to find things to do with their extra time.
There may come a time where people do not have to work, but choose to.
Science fiction has wondered down this rabbit hole a few times.
Robots of Dawn.
Voyage from Yesteryear
Even Heinlein's For Us, the Living, go into the concepts of labor by choice.

Mach said:

Are you saying you included the entire supply chain for the robots in that number?
Did you account for how many new job industries there are today, vs the 50's and 60's? They did not evaporate, people now do other things.

I heard a quote of something like 65% of jobs when kids get out of school will be doing job titles that DO NOT EXIST TODAY. We can't wrap our heads around it because it's an unknown.


Not lately.
But have you programmed "simple intelligence" lately? It's deceptively complex, and unless you make it even dramatically MORE complex than that, people will HATE interfacing with it.

Click to expand...

Nope, didn't account for any of those things, but I'm looking forward, not backwards.

Many of the new products that you mentioned only created large amounts of jobs for a limited time. they eventually became obsolete, or at least obsolete as a stand-alone product. And most innovative new products today are replacements for an older product, maybe at first they sit on the store shelves side by side competing products, but eventually their existence eliminates the need for other products, and don't really add to the size of our market or marketplace.

More and more of our products are virtual products. Things that aren't made in a factory. They are made in the mind, developed in a lab, reproduced electronically not in a manufacturing plant, and distributed to the masses without trucks or stores.

imagep said:

Some jobs last year, some more this year, some more next year, pretty soon automation has replaced a heck of a lot of jobs.

Click to expand...

Eventually, yes. But I think in reality you can't just waive your hand and say "more next year" and then pretend that it's the biggest problem we face. If someone says "this isn't happening as fast as you're saying it is", the comment "But it is happening!" isn't a proper response. If you have data showing that half of our jobs will be replaced by AI with in the next few decades, and that there will not be any new jobs to replace them, then show me the data. Otherwise you just have an opinion and it's very unconvincing to me in general.

imagep said:

Thats not unreasonable since the wage that we pay our lowest level of workers is 30% less than it was in the late 1970's.

But you do have a valid point about needing better k-12 education. Every time that those danged liberals try to do something to improve the education system, conservatives start complaining that its a waste of money or that it won't work. The republican party has become the anti-education party in the US.

Click to expand...

Why does everything come down to partisan politics?

You don't need to revamp your entire education system to A) start actually getting them to post secondary level, and B) direct people into the industries and professions that actually need people.

That's neither liberal nor conservative, just plain common sense.

Visbek said:

Just FYI: That's a myth. Frogs will eventually jump out of water before it injures them.

Click to expand...

OK, great! I'm relieved.

I've never tried it myself, but I did see that Glen Beck show where he did it on tv. Fortunately, the frog he boiled was a rubber frog, so no froggie lives were lost in the production of his show.

Fearandloathing said:

Why does everything come down to partisan politics?

You don't need to revamp your entire education system to A) start actually getting them to post secondary level, and B) direct people into the industries and professions that actually need people.

That's neither liberal nor conservative, just plain common sense.

Click to expand...

You made it political when you blamed liberals. I agree that these types of issues shouldn't be partisan, but as long as you make it partisan, so am I.

But since we aren't accomplishing the things we should be accomplishing with education, we DO need to revamp something. When we do the same thing over and over and get poor results each time, it's OBVIOUS that we need to do something differently if we expect better results.