Stephen Hawking on the future of employment

[David_N]

I was reading Hawking's reddit AMA and found this gem:

I'm rather late to the question-asking party, but I'll ask anyway and hope. Have you thought about the possibility of technological unemployment, where we develop automated processes that ultimately cause large unemployment by performing jobs faster and/or cheaper than people can perform them? Some compare this thought to the thoughts of the Luddites, whose revolt was caused in part by perceived technological unemployment over 100 years ago. In particular, do you foresee a world where people work less because so much work is automated? Do you think people will always either find work or manufacture more work to be done? Thank you for your time and your contributions. I’ve found research to be a largely social endeavor, and you've been an inspiration to so many.
Answer:
If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

Hawking nails it. eace

 

[Ancient Herald]

Well, according to a great video on You Tub called The Quantum Revolution, the matter rearranger ill be here in about fifty years.

But i still think that the wealthy elites powers that be will do what they can to get control over it and do what they can to prevent anyone else from having a quality life.

But there is a huge problem with what he said.

I will also put many people out of work and displace them.

 

[DDD]

But then there should be machines to defend the minority from the rest of the world also.

 

[Paleocon]

I was reading Hawking's reddit AMA and found this gem:

Hawking nails it. eace

Machines already do make everything we need. This hasn't happened. And socialism will never work.

 

[azgreg]

This thread comes up about every 3 months or so.

 

[foadi]

Machines already do make everything we need. This hasn't happened. And socialism will never work.

I think he is talking about a post-scarcity society.

 

[Riveroaks]

I was reading Hawking's reddit AMA and found this gem:

Hawking nails it. eace

He is correct -- it is simply a fork in the road choice resulting in class struggle or revolution. Again.

 

[Fenton]

I was reading Hawking's reddit AMA and found this gem:

Hawking nails it. eace

Yep, its all gone down hill since the invention if the cotton gin...:roll:

 

[Ancient Herald]

He is correct -- it is simply a fork in the road choice resulting in class struggle or revolution. Again.

There's a difference?

Many people say they want a revolution, well, you know, we all want to change the world.

 

[David_N]

Yep, its all gone down hill since the invention if the cotton gin...:roll:

Big difference between something that needs to be operated by people and fully automated machines.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Yep, its all gone down hill since the invention if the cotton gin...:roll:

Yeah, because this



and this



are comparable.

 

[David_N]

Yeah, because this

View attachment 67191393

and this

View attachment 67191394

are comparable.

Hilarious, but this is a better comparison:

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Hilarious, but this is a better comparison:
View attachment 67191395

I will begrudgingly admit that the pic you show is certainly more applicable to our lifetimes.

 

[Riveroaks]

There's a difference?

Many people say they want a revolution, well, you know, we all want to change the world.

The USA has already had one big revolution but it was against the King Of England over freedom from taxes and it established a laissez faire capitalistic male voting slave owning democratic republic.

Since then, the tariff laws have vacillated over laissez faire, the US Civil War ended slavery, women were granted the right to vote after WW1, and the 1930's Great Depression inaugurated socialist safety nets.

Income taxes starting in 1913 initially taxed the rich disproportionately, then since Reagan taxed the middle class disproportionately mostly due to capital gains loopholes such as Mitt Romney utilizes for his $20 million annual income and only 14% effective tax rate.

We tend to solve our class struggles by alternatingly electing GOP vs DEM candidates for office, rather than revolutions.

The pendulum has largely swung towards the GOP lately. That will ultimately mean more tax cuts, but mostly for the rich.

Question is will the GOP win a grand slam in 2016?

With Trump it looks like they may.

Then you can expect less environmental regulation and more oil drilling everywhere, which will lead to business prosperity again.

This happened to be Mitt Romney's platform as well, however with all the flip flopping and lying he did then not enough people would trust him to vote for him and put him over 50%.

Trump is at least honest about his unabashed wealth and so he is winning kudos for honesty where Mitt never showed any honesty -- ironic for a church boy with a famous church name.

Plus Trump admits he stole from the rich with his earlier bankruptcies whereas Romney stole from middle class corporate workers with his reorgs and layoffs.

What a difference 4 years makes !!!

 

[JumpinJack]

I was reading Hawking's reddit AMA and found this gem:

Hawking nails it. eace

One thing that happens with technology, though, is that the more that can be done by technology, the more that will be expected to be done, and at a faster rate.

In my field of work (legal, trials, altho I'm semi-retired now), I saw the beginning of technology in that field take hold. It made the legal work so much more efficient, and better. It was amazing. Now there's the cloud, and other advances that continue to improve on methods. But what happened is that the work didn't lessen, because now that we could do more at a faster clip, more was expected to be done, and at a faster turnaround time. We no longer needed three weeks for a group of people to review thousands of documents. We could have them imaged and put in a database, and read the images, and search them for relevant information. Because of that, more detailed information was being requested, more organization required, constant searches of the database for minor facts, and then you still had to print and notebook all sorts of documents.

The same thing happened with housework. Consider that the country invented and improved vacuums to take the place of brooms, microwaves, refrigerators instead of ice boxes, microfiber dusting cloths, washing machines and dryers, etc. Instead of cutting down on housework time, time spent on housework actually increased because a higher level of cleaning was expected, and more often. Instead of brushing out your floors every day for a few minutes in a small house, you now how to lug out a vacuum, plug it in, change the bag, and haul it around a larger house every week. Then you have to buy new bags, have the vacuum repaired, or shop for a new vacuum periodically. Same thing with washing clothes. When there were no washing machines, clothes weren't washed that often. Once the machines came along, clothing was expected to be washed frequently.

What tech. does do is put certain kinds of workers out of work, I think. The lower level ones. But the ones who actually do the tech work might, in fact, be more in demand and have a heavier workload.

 

[Goshin]

One thing that happens with technology, though, is that the more that can be done by technology, the more that will be expected to be done, and at a faster rate.

In my field of work (legal, trials, altho I'm semi-retired now), I saw the beginning of technology in that field take hold. It made the legal work so much more efficient, and better. It was amazing. Now there's the cloud, and other advances that continue to improve on methods. But what happened is that the work didn't lessen, because now that we could do more at a faster clip, more was expected to be done, and at a faster turnaround time. We no longer needed three weeks for a group of people to review thousands of documents. We could have them imaged and put in a database, and read the images, and search them for relevant information. Because of that, more detailed information was being requested, more organization required, constant searches of the database for minor facts, and then you still had to print and notebook all sorts of documents.

The same thing happened with housework. Consider that the country invented and improved vacuums to take the place of brooms, microwaves, refrigerators instead of ice boxes, microfiber dusting cloths, washing machines and dryers, etc. Instead of cutting down on housework time, time spent on housework actually increased because a higher level of cleaning was expected, and more often. Instead of brushing out your floors every day for a few minutes in a small house, you now how to lug out a vacuum, plug it in, change the bag, and haul it around a larger house every week. Then you have to buy new bags, have the vacuum repaired, or shop for a new vacuum periodically. Same thing with washing clothes. When there were no washing machines, clothes weren't washed that often. Once the machines came along, clothing was expected to be washed frequently.

What tech. does do is put certain kinds of workers out of work, I think. The lower level ones. But the ones who actually do the tech work might, in fact, be more in demand and have a heavier workload.

Paperwork and records that used to keep 30 clerks busy is now handled by one or two people and a computer system.


Inventory, shipping and receiving... all impacted.


Over the course of 15 years my department at Duke shrank from 20 to 12 and then 8 and finally 6... and then six months ago they fired us all. Automated out of existence.


In 10-20 years, expert computer systems will likely replace 50-80% of lower end engineering/technical jobs.... whereas BMW might have employed 300 engineers in 2015, in 2030 it may have only 20 really GOOD engineers, innovators and designers, with advanced expert computer systems to replace the less creative work of the other 280.



It's coming. 3D printing is another one that is going to change the world in the next 10-30 years, along with new materials technologies.


The world won't stay the same as it is, unless the PTB suppress change.

 

[David_N]

Paperwork and records that used to keep 30 clerks busy is now handled by one or two people and a computer system.


Inventory, shipping and receiving... all impacted.


Over the course of 15 years my department at Duke shrank from 20 to 12 and then 8 and finally 6... and then six months ago they fired us all. Automated out of existence.


In 10-20 years, expert computer systems will likely replace 50-80% of lower end engineering/technical jobs.... whereas BMW might have employed 300 engineers in 2015, in 2030 it may have only 20 really GOOD engineers, innovators and designers, with advanced expert computer systems to replace the less creative work of the other 280.



It's coming. 3D printing is another one that is going to change the world in the next 10-30 years, along with new materials technologies.


The world won't stay the same as it is, unless the PTB suppress change.

Sorry to hear about you losing your job. Automation today is far different then the "automation" that occurred in the past. People had to operate the machines, now, the machines operate themselves (well, after being programmed, but, once the initial program is written, it's just copied onto every machine..) The implications of this are horrifying to think about within our current system, we'll either progress into a more socialistic society or, as hawking said, a society where the richest prevent redistribution of the gains made from automation.

 

[JumpinJack]

Paperwork and records that used to keep 30 clerks busy is now handled by one or two people and a computer system.


Inventory, shipping and receiving... all impacted.


Over the course of 15 years my department at Duke shrank from 20 to 12 and then 8 and finally 6... and then six months ago they fired us all. Automated out of existence.


In 10-20 years, expert computer systems will likely replace 50-80% of lower end engineering/technical jobs.... whereas BMW might have employed 300 engineers in 2015, in 2030 it may have only 20 really GOOD engineers, innovators and designers, with advanced expert computer systems to replace the less creative work of the other 280.



It's coming. 3D printing is another one that is going to change the world in the next 10-30 years, along with new materials technologies.


The world won't stay the same as it is, unless the PTB suppress change.

I guess that's called progress. It's inevitable. It's always the lower skilled, or non-skilled, that are affected the most.

I do know that my workload increased, as the technology increased. However, that may be because I kept up with the times and became one of the more technologically skilled paralegals. That became my niche. I loved it from the start and took to it like a duck to water. The ones who didn't want to learn those skills were at a disadvantage.

 

[Riveroaks]

I guess that's called progress. It's inevitable. It's always the lower skilled, or non-skilled, that are affected the most.

I do know that my workload increased, as the technology increased. However, that may be because I kept up with the times and became one of the more technologically skilled paralegals. That became my niche. I loved it from the start and took to it like a duck to water. The ones who didn't want to learn those skills were at a disadvantage.

I have found that workload was constant and maximum, but productivity with the newfangled machines has increased 1000 fold at least.

One person can do now faster in one hour what 100 would have taken pre 1980 to do in an entire day.

 

[Goshin]

I guess that's called progress. It's inevitable. It's always the lower skilled, or non-skilled, that are affected the most.

That's soon to change. A lot of people who thought they could never be replaced by technology, are going to replaced by advanced computer systems in the next couple decades.

I do know that my workload increased, as the technology increased. However, that may be because I kept up with the times and became one of the more technologically skilled paralegals. That became my niche. I loved it from the start and took to it like a duck to water. The ones who didn't want to learn those skills were at a disadvantage.

I found another occupation that suited me which should be resistant to automation for at least another decade, maybe two... by which time I'll be retirement age. However, I'm concerned for others.

 

[betuadollar]

That's not the current direction in liberal political thought though. The direction is one of enslaving the entire world to the production of cheap products, marketed here by American corporations amongst an ever increasing population, while permitting government to redistribute the proceeds.

Manufacturing has bounced from north to south, to China to Bangladesh to Vietnam, ever in search of cheaper labor. Eventually everyone will be working for fractions of a penny; their government officials will reap the profits of volume and distribute just enough to adjust the standard of living accordingly. (Which is precisely what's happened in China.)

While we hedonists here in the US will sit at our laptops, unemployed, and point our fingers to purchase. As long as US government distributes enough to keep the population happy, the whole world will tick merrily along. The bankers will continue to reap their minuscule fractions, growing richer by the second; it is their money after-all.

Every once in a while we will turn to China and say, give us our money back so we can continue to buy your products and fuel your economy. And they will return it for pennies on the dollar.

There's a real beauty to this madness.

 

[Paleocon]

I think he is talking about a post-scarcity society.

So he's talking about a fantasy world.

 

[David_N]

That's not the current direction in liberal political thought though. The direction is one of enslaving the entire world to the production of cheap products, marketed here amongst an ever increasing population, while permitting government to redistribute the proceeds.

Manufacturing has bounced from north to south, to China to Bangladesh to Vietnam, ever in search of cheaper labor. Eventually everyone will be working for fractions of a penny; their government officials will reap the profits of volume and distribute just enough to adjust the standard of living accordingly. (Which is precisely what's happened in China.)

While we hedonists here in the US will sit at our laptops, unemployed, and point our fingers to purchase. As long as US government distributes enough to keep the population happy, the whole world will tick merrily along. The bankers will continue to reap their minuscule fractions - it is their money after-all - growing richer by the second.

Manufacturing has bounced from north to south, to China to Bangladesh to Vietnam, ever in search of cheaper labor. Eventually everyone will be working for fractions of a penny; their government officials will reap the profits of volume and distribute just enough to adjust the standard of living accordingly. (Which is precisely what's happened in China.)

Thank the capitalists.

 

[Paleocon]

Thank the capitalists.

You know China is a Communist country, right?

 

[David_N]

You know China is a Communist country, right?

Yeah, a "communist" country that barely does anything for the people and lets capitalists do whatever the hell they want.