If there are no jobs then what?

[imagep]

Well there are those of us with degrees and skills in areas that a machine can't (yet, I'm not about to play fortune teller) replicate. When that day comes all of the sudden my degree in music performance won't look so silly! ��

Sure, but are there enough of those jobs that everyone can get one?

Again, you guys are missing the point.

 

[imagep]

Its going to take a change in thinking on the part of the general public. Automation is an opportunity for self sufficiency and self employment. People are going to need to learn the old ways people did things back before there were really governments and massive corporations. Almost everyone was self employed either as a farmer or other profession. Self employment and the art of seeing and exploiting opportunity needs to make a comeback if we want to have a better life than those who have come before. Capitalism still works in a highly automated society if people are generally disposed to becoming entrepreneurs. If we start fostering massive entrepreneurship now, by the time things are heavily automated people will have taken advantage of it and the hit to society as a whole will be minimal if at all. When we talk entrepreneurship we are talking the following. Investing in ones self, investing in business's, investing in raw materials, investing in land. People by investing in a little bit of everything and learning how to asses and manage risk will be able to not only succeed in a highly automated society but thrive. The government intervention needs to be the fostering of entrepreneurship.

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that entrapanureship is enough to overcome the lack of need for human labor by itself. Seriously, we can't all open a maid service, or a grocery shopping delivery service, or an automobile factory.

And more and more of our products are "virtual" in nature. They aren't produced in giant factory employing thousands of people, and they aren't being produced in someones garage. They actually were just invented once, and then they are replicated over and over at virtually no expense, often with no real revenue model. I'm talking about things like phone apps. Yup, someone could develop the next hot new free and and then sell their unprofitable company to Google or Microsoft, but there is simply not enough demand for everyone to do that.

Virtual products are reducing the need for human labor as fast as robots are. Like the smart phone calculator app. It's reduced the need for stores to have retail workers selling calculators, it's reduced the need for truck drivers to deliver those calculators from the wholesaler to the retailer, etc.

Technology is reducing the need for human labor in multiple ways, not just one way.

 

[imagep]

Now they need no men, Except one, the owner.

There will be a day where an automobile factory can produce a thousand cars a day, with maybe just a few human employees.

 

[PirateMk1]

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that entrapanureship is enough to overcome the lack of need for human labor by itself. Seriously, we can't all open a maid service, or a grocery shopping delivery service, or an automobile factory.

And more and more of our products are "virtual" in nature. They aren't produced in giant factory employing thousands of people, and they aren't being produced in someones garage. They actually were just invented once, and then they are replicated over and over at virtually no expense, often with no real revenue model. I'm talking about things like phone apps. Yup, someone could develop the next hot new free and and then sell their unprofitable company to Google or Microsoft, but there is simply not enough demand for everyone to do that.

Virtual products are reducing the need for human labor as fast as robots are. Like the smart phone calculator app. It's reduced the need for stores to have retail workers selling calculators, it's reduced the need for truck drivers to deliver those calculators from the wholesaler to the retailer, etc.

Technology is reducing the need for human labor in multiple ways, not just one way.

All true. But remember this, that's why I say people should be diversified in their investments. Some people will have business's others will have other investments and if most if not all were somewhat intelligent everyone would be diversified in their investments. The other thing is this as automation increases the desire for handmade unique things increase. Not at the same rate but enough that is provides a niche. The other thing that will be increased in demand is human interaction. We are seeing this now with companies advertising answering and other services that have real humans that live in the locality. Households will start going back to toward parents being at the house a majority of the time instead of leaving for work.

Will entrepreneurship be enough I don't rightly know, but suspect that it probably is. Big business is on its way out in more than a few industries because economies of scale work well in only a few industries with heavy automation. Those being resource gathering and processing. Logistics, though that is only partial. Manufacturing is going to become much more local. Content generation will be local as well.

 

[PirateMk1]

There will be a day where an automobile factory can produce a thousand cars a day, with maybe just a few human employees.

It wont even need the few humans.

 

[Johnson]

Sure, but are there enough of those jobs that everyone can get one?

Again, you guys are missing the point.

Thats a good point. Those jobs are very few and far between.

 

[imagep]

All true. But remember this, that's why I say people should be diversified in their investments. Some people will have business's others will have other investments and if most if not all were somewhat intelligent everyone would be diversified in their investments. The other thing is this as automation increases the desire for handmade unique things increase. Not at the same rate but enough that is provides a niche. The other thing that will be increased in demand is human interaction. We are seeing this now with companies advertising answering and other services that have real humans that live in the locality. Households will start going back to toward parents being at the house a majority of the time instead of leaving for work.

Will entrepreneurship be enough I don't rightly know, but suspect that it probably is. Big business is on its way out in more than a few industries because economies of scale work well in only a few industries with heavy automation. Those being resource gathering and processing. Logistics, though that is only partial. Manufacturing is going to become much more local. Content generation will be local as well.

Where will people get the money to invest with if they can't find jobs?

 

[imagep]

Where will people get the money to invest with if they can't find jobs?

I don't think that there is a single magic answer. I suspect that there are going to have to be hundreds of little solutions, and many of those solutions will have to be implemented and enforced by government.

Regardless, if we don't find solutions, the alternative is massive poverty existing in a world where it takes almost no effort to produce vast quantities of wealth - which of course makes no sense at all.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Well, people have to build and maintain those machines, and even if they didn't, if the workforce was replaced by machines entirely, then businesses would have no consumers, because nobody would be making money. Even then, there are jobs that machines can't do, like politics, and developing the software and hardware for those machines. Also jobs in video game development, making information technology, teaching science, etc.

Exactly.

No machine was going to replace me in the Marine Electronics field. There is no machine that will climb up a mast, and change out a wind instrument on a sailboat, and there is no machine that knows how to troubleshoot a malfunctioning RADAR or Autopilot.

This applies equally to Avionics and Process Instrumentation.

No machine will ever replace a skilled technician with excellent troubleshooting skills and experience.

Not gonna happen.

Even in the Navy we had VAST. Huge computer stations that did troubleshooting of some Avionics. Even then, a tech was needed to fix the VAST system when it broke.

No matter what the machine, it will break. When it does, you need a skilled technician to fix it. Nothing else will do.

The trick is to be that guy they call.

 

[Lafayette]

Many of us were brought up to fear automation only to see it produce more product, a better economy, and more jobs. It is a hard argument to debate because of the very strong post hoc evidence.

Does anyone here think we are looking at a "very normal" 20% unemployment by 2030? 2040?

Automation will continue to produce unemployment in the lower-qualified manufacturing industries. But, that sector represents only a 12.4% of total jobs, as seen here:

Frankly, I don't see this growing as a percentage, since the long-term economic trend in the US is towards Services Industries. But, perhaps it won't be shrinking either, that is, it will keep pace.

However, there is an "escape clause" for those who wish to remain in the Manufacturing sector. And that is to obtain the qualifications necessary to run Manufacturing Automation Devices. If you have worked in Manufacturing, you already know - more or less - the general process. With a Manufacturing Automation certification, you will likely find a much better paying job.

But, first you need the qualification certificate.

And, finally, this bit of good news from the Harvard Business Review (here) - an excerpt:

For example, the Association for Advancing Automation said in response that we “are missing the bigger picture” by not recognizing that American companies are “successfully implementing automation technologies instead of going out of business or sending manufacturing overseas.”

They add: “American manufacturing’s embrace of robotics will ensure a new manufacturing renaissance in this country.”

'Nuff said? Go for it ... !
_____________
______________________________________

 

[kanabco]

Automation will continue to produce unemployment in the lower-qualified manufacturing industries. But, that sector represents only a 12.4% of total jobs, as seen here:

Frankly, I don't see this growing as a percentage, since the long-term economic trend in the US is towards Services Industries. But, perhaps it won't be shrinking either, that is, it will keep pace.

However, there is an "escape clause" for those who wish to remain in the Manufacturing sector. And that is to obtain the qualifications necessary to run Manufacturing Automation Devices. If you have worked in Manufacturing, you already know - more or less - the general process. With a Manufacturing Automation certification, you will likely find a much better paying job.

But, first you need the qualification certificate.

And, finally, this bit of good news from the Harvard Business Review (here) - an excerpt:

'Nuff said? Go for it ... !
_____________
______________________________________

You are misunderstanding a key element which is that most futurist are no longer talking about automation for manufacturing they are talking about heretofore un-questioned automation of the other sectors in your pie chart.

Pick any piece of your pie and tell me why it can not or will not be automated.

 

[PirateMk1]

Where will people get the money to invest with if they can't find jobs?

Hence the reason to start now while we can. Otherwise. I think it gets ugly otherwise.

 

[Lafayette]

You are misunderstanding a key element which is that most futurist are no longer talking about automation for manufacturing they are talking about heretofore un-questioned automation of the other sectors in your pie chart.

Pick any piece of your pie and tell me why it can not or will not be automated.

The services industries have already been highly automated because the key-piece was data-processing that has since evolved to the Internet. That was an evolution of major proportions, but it is "done" in a certain sense. What jobs of any great consequence are computers killing. (The last kind, I think, was mine - because I used to sell computers. And we never saw the impact of Cloud Computing. Or rather, we saw Cloud Computing, but never understood its profound impact.)

For "automation" to be a job killer it must replace people who cost more than the automated process and at a higher cost per unit produced. Tell me where in Finance, Business Services and Education/HealthCare (or even Retail/Wholesale Trade) that you see that happening? (For as long as a market-economy is growing - that is, there is no unforeseen external catastrophe.)

Automation is not computerisation. Not in my book. Because automation means that a man-made process is replaced by some automatic device that does precisely the same work. Computerisation is not that; it is just an additional tool that augments an individual's productivity but does not necessarily replace it.

For instance, an accountant had a hand-cranked adding-machine half a century ago to perform calculations that are now performed on a computer. Which means that the accountant can do more accounting of even larger enterprises - since they have more efficiency in the same 40-hour week. But, s/he is not necessarily replaced. (Again, a key condition is that the economy has no sharp, sudden shock that reduces GDP. Like a plague or a war could trigger.)

Another example is Uber - where taxis are distributed according to the closest distance to the customer. But, that does not mean that taxis no longer exist. Not yet, but that could happen with automated/networked cars - which still have to be built assembled on a production line even if automated.

It is not clear-cut what the future holds, but I am convinced that if we assure that Tertiary Education is free, gratis and for nothing - then those who do not want to do manual-labor (maybe construction is the last such domain to persist) can certainly climb the skills-ladder to better jobs at a desk. (How that may be good or bad health-wise is altogether another question.)

Every generation since the 18th century has met the challenge of productivity-growth with ample room for expanding the workforce. (Yes, of course, we've had some periods of recession and depressions.)

Why? Because we have a sizable market-economy where workers are also consumers; and for as long as there are more workers, there are more customers and therefore a demand for goods/services. It is a self-regenerative cycle. (And woe betide the day women no longer want to have children!)

(If we ever over-populate that earth, mankind will simply find another planet to move onto.)

Methinks ...
____________________
_______________________

 

[imagep]

Exactly.

No machine was going to replace me in the Marine Electronics field. There is no machine that will climb up a mast, and change out a wind instrument on a sailboat, and there is no machine that knows how to troubleshoot a malfunctioning RADAR or Autopilot.

This applies equally to Avionics and Process Instrumentation.

No machine will ever replace a skilled technician with excellent troubleshooting skills and experience.

Not gonna happen.

Even in the Navy we had VAST. Huge computer stations that did troubleshooting of some Avionics. Even then, a tech was needed to fix the VAST system when it broke.

No matter what the machine, it will break. When it does, you need a skilled technician to fix it. Nothing else will do.

The trick is to be that guy they call.

I bet if you look at the history of marine operations (including military, shipping, fishing, transportation and pleasure), you will find that a far fewer percentage of our worldwide population is employed in that field than at any time in recorded history.

Once again, no one is claiming that every single job will be taken over by technology, just that there will be enough jobs lost to technology that there will eventually not be enough full time jobs (by todays definition) to provide every family with at least one job.

I also find it interesting that we all seem to think that our particular field is somehow immune from the loss of jobs. The reality is no job field is immune from employment shrinkage due to technological improvements.

The job I did just 30 years ago in the Army no longer exists. I was basically a middle man between the people who seek out targets and the howitzers that dropped bombs on those targets. It has been replaced by computers and more sophisticated communication technology - no more need for that middleman to computing the settings and give the orders, now the spotters call in fire directly to the guns which compute their own data automatically and without human intervention.

 

[kanabco]

Every generation since the 18th century has met the challenge of productivity-growth with ample room for expanding the workforce.

This is the pickle you have gotten yourself into. If you are dead set that what went before comes after (post hoc ergo propter hoc) then there is no discussion to have. Only learning.

After watching this Ted talk come back and again tell me one job in your pi chart that cannot ever be automated or eliminated with AI.

Andrew McAfee: What will future jobs look like? | TED Talk | TED.com

 

[imagep]

Hence the reason to start now while we can. Otherwise. I think it gets ugly otherwise.

sure, for you and me.

But you are still missing the point of the topic which is "how do we correct this issue so that future generations can avoid mass scale poverty. This isn't so much about you or me (although I fear the need for my particular profession is running out quick), it's about our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren.

 

[imagep]

...

Every generation since the 18th century has met the challenge of productivity-growth with ample room for expanding the workforce. (Yes, of course, we've had some periods of recession and depressions.)

Why? Because we have a sizable market-economy where workers are also consumers; and for as long as there are more workers, there are more customers and therefore a demand for goods/services. It is a self-regenerative cycle. (And woe betide the day women no longer want to have children!)

(If we ever over-populate that earth, mankind will simply find another planet to move onto.)

Methinks ...
____________________
_______________________

I think the part you are missing is that if the loss of jobs due to technology grows faster than demand does, then we are spiraling downward.

Up until this time, things have worked out because of three reasons.

1) First, we have reduced the percentage of our population who are in the labor force (once you account for family farming and whatnot) by implementing social security so that old people aren't forced to labor, child labor laws, etc. Also young people tend to enter the work force at an older age because they are more likely today to attend high school and college or trade school.

2) We have also reduced the hours per year that we work, fewer hours per day, two days off each week instead of just one, holidays, vacations, etc.

3) And because the demand for creature comfort type stuff is so great. But now that we have running water in most every house, electricity, central HVAC, rapid transportation, rapid communication, etc, we may be reaching the point where additional creature comforts aren't as desirable as the ones that we gained during the 21st century. It's the law of diminishing returns.

Demand is not infinite. If it was, the uber rich would spend all their money on stuff. Bill Gates wouldn't have just two cars, he would have a hundred thousand cars. Warren Buffet wouldn't drive a ford pickup truck and live in the same modest house that he has lived in for decades. There becomes a point were our need for stuff is satified and we simply don't need any more stoves, or shoes, or vibrators, or Big Macs or Whoppers.

 

[PirateMk1]

sure, for you and me.

But you are still missing the point of the topic which is "how do we correct this issue so that future generations can avoid mass scale poverty. This isn't so much about you or me (although I fear the need for my particular profession is running out quick), it's about our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren.

You don't think that businesses will pass down to the children. You don't think that there will be a need for some employment? You don't think that people cannot successfully buy and sell things for profit? Or provide services?

Just a side note but my profession is headed the way of the Dodo bird with 10 to fifteen years maybe sooner. It doesn't mean I am out of business. It means I need to reequip. Again. ****ing CARB assholes. Oh well. That's part of doing business.

 

[Lafayette]

I think the part you are missing is that if the loss of jobs due to technology grows faster than demand does, then we are spiraling downward.

Go into the data, back to the 1948, and you'll see that what is feared has never happened. And why?

Because (since the GI Bill after WW2) we gave Americans ample opportunity to access higher education, thus making their skill-set continually "up-graded".

Which is nice, but two things are happening, and we must take them into serious consideration - or what everybody fears (higher level of unemployment) can indeed occur. China is graduating thousands of engineers per year, and is second only to the US in deposing hi-tech patents.

So, the only solution I see to assure that we are not totally submerged by Chinese competition is copy their Education Model - that is, one key part of it.

The American student today is graduating with a debt of an average $35K to pay off. (See here.) This is preventing a LOT OF PEOPLE from undertaking further studies. These people will become the unemployed of tomorrow.

Our Tertiary Education must become free, gratis and for nothing at State Schools (subsidized by the Federal Budget) - or so close thereto that NO CHILD IS FORBIDDEN ACCESS to vocational, 2- or 4-year postsecondary schooling.

Or, or a great number of today's high-school graduates will indeed become tomorrow's unemployed ...
________________________________________________

 

[imagep]

You don't think that businesses will pass down to the children.

Sure, some will. But since most families don't own a profitable business, that's not going to be a revenue source for the masses.

You don't think that there will be a need for some employment?

Sure, but not enough for every family to have at least one decent paying job. It's like when we have ten dogs but only 8 bones, doesn't particularly matter how well we train those dogs, two are still going to be boneless.

You don't think that people cannot successfully buy and sell things for profit? Or provide services?

The profit margin in retail is becoming smaller and smaller due to technology. Why should I pay you $10 for this shovel when I can purchase shovels all day long on ebay or amazon for $5? The reality is that the small retailer can't compete with the incredible efficientcy of a huge online retailer that doesn't have to pay for the overhead of a thousand individual stores or sales people or cashiers or shelf stockers or the guy who has to collect the buggies from the parking lot.

Just a side note but my profession is headed the way of the Dodo bird with 10 to fifteen years maybe sooner. It doesn't mean I am out of business. It means I need to reequip. Again. ****ing CARB assholes. Oh well. That's part of doing business.

I've been "re-equiping" my business for well over ten years, and have had to shut down entirely one segment of it and I have another that's on the verge of shutting down due to the fact that our product is being obsoleted by digital data being transfered between computers. I'm just hoping that my business will survive til I retire (maybe 10 years, 20 years if I am lucky), but I don't expect the market to be able to support it after my retirement. The only way I have made it as long as I have is I simply out survived many of my competitors - my industry has effectively consolidated into fewer shops.

 

[imagep]

Go into the data, back to the 1948, and you'll see that what is feared has never happened. And why?

Because (since the GI Bill after WW2) we gave Americans ample opportunity to access higher education, thus making their skill-set continually "up-graded".

Which is nice, but two things are happening, and we must take them into serious consideration - or what everybody fears (higher level of unemployment) can indeed occur. China is graduating thousands of engineers per year, and is second only to the US in deposing hi-tech patents.

So, the only solution I see to assure that we are not totally submerged by Chinese competition is copy their Education Model - that is, one key part of it.

The American student today is graduating with a debt of an average $35K to pay off. (See here.) This is preventing a LOT OF PEOPLE from undertaking further studies. These people will become the unemployed of tomorrow.

Our Tertiary Education must become free, gratis and for nothing at State Schools (subsidized by the Federal Budget) - or so close thereto that NO CHILD IS FORBIDDEN ACCESS to vocational, 2- or 4-year postsecondary schooling.

Or, or a great number of today's high-school graduates will indeed become tomorrow's unemployed ...
________________________________________________

I totally agree about education, but even if every American was to get a PhD, we will eventually reach the point where there is not enough need for human labor, at any skill or education level, that we will be able to offer a 40 hour a week job to every family.

I think part of the solution is going to be shorter and shorter workweeks, more vacation days, family leave time, a younger retirement age, and even entering the workforce at an older age (not allowing students to work, and encouraging higher levels of education).

No one answer, lot's of little answers. The BIG isn't going to be out of the question either.

 

[PirateMk1]

Sure, some will. But since most families don't own a profitable business, that's not going to be a revenue source for the masses.



Sure, but not enough for every family to have at least one decent paying job. It's like when we have ten dogs but only 8 bones, doesn't particularly matter how well we train those dogs, two are still going to be boneless.




The profit margin in retail is becoming smaller and smaller due to technology. Why should I pay you $10 for this shovel when I can purchase shovels all day long on ebay or amazon for $5? The reality is that the small retailer can't compete with the incredible efficientcy of a huge online retailer that doesn't have to pay for the overhead of a thousand individual stores or sales people or cashiers or shelf stockers or the guy who has to collect the buggies from the parking lot.



I've been "re-equiping" my business for well over ten years, and have had to shut down entirely one segment of it and I have another that's on the verge of shutting down due to the fact that our product is being obsoleted by digital data being transfered between computers. I'm just hoping that my business will survive til I retire (maybe 10 years, 20 years if I am lucky), but I don't expect the market to be able to support it after my retirement. The only way I have made it as long as I have is I simply out survived many of my competitors - my industry has effectively consolidated into fewer shops.

Amazon and ebay are good examples especially ebay. They are the smaller retailers competing against the big guys, and doing so successful it would seem.

 

[Lafayette]

I think the part you are missing is that if the loss of jobs due to technology grows faster than demand does, then we are spiraling downward.

I don't see it happening. Why?

Because in the US the total population available for work (who are also consumers) is not declining (as is the case in Europe). This growth in population sustains Demand, and therefore employment:

The only point I am making is that the numbers of people is not enough. We need people with talent because the jobs available will be more complex ...
_________________________

 

[Lafayette]

... there is no machine that knows how to troubleshoot a malfunctioning RADAR or Autopilot. This applies equally to Avionics and Process Instrumentation.

I have friends here in France working at Airbus developing exactly those systems.

It is not that difficult, and only a question of time.

Like the guy at Boeing who once told me that Boeing would never build wings with fiber-carbon elements - which Airbus employs today on one of its commercial models.

We can't stop progress, but we can adapt to it ...
_____________________

 

[Lafayette]

I think part of the solution is going to be shorter and shorter workweeks, more vacation days, family leave time, a younger retirement age, and even entering the workforce at an older age (not allowing students to work, and encouraging higher levels of education).

No one answer, lot's of little answers. The BIG isn't going to be out of the question either.

I can agree with all that ...