Why automation will not lead to long term unemployment

[Masterhawk]

In the recent years, there has been a growing discussion on automation, more specifically, on how it will start replacing jobs and put people out of work. What never really seems to be stated in these discussions is that the notion that technology will lead to mass long term unemployment dates back a long way. In fact, Emperor Vespasian once refused to allow a more efficient way of transporting goods on the basis that it would put people out of work.

If this wikipedia article is to be trusted, the fear of technology replacing jobs led to authorities limiting innovation during the Renaissance.
Technological unemployment - Wikipedia

When the industrial revolution was in full swing, there were definitely people who believed that machines would eventually replace people's jobs. In fact, there was a group of textile workers called the luddites who destroyed textile machinery. They did this because the machines could be operated by people with less skill and could produce faster than any skilled worker by hand.

By the end of the 19th century, the fear of technological unemployment dissipated as the public saw that though many jobs were taken by the machines, new jobs were created to replace the old ones.

Many advocates of UBI will dismiss the history of technology not leading to mass unemployment, saying that it's different this time. What they fail to see is why it didn't happen in the past.

The law of economic scarcity states two things:

1. resources are limited

2. desires are unlimited

As long as the second point remains true, there will always be work for a man to do.

For most of human history, the vast majority of jobs involved making or gathering what was needed to survive (hunting, gathering fishing, and agriculture). During the industrial revolution, this changed as new machines and methods allowed for greater crop yields with less manpower. The additional manpower went on to other areas such as manufacturing. Since the 1980s, manufacturing jobs have been in decline. Despite this, manufacturing output in the US is at an all time high. In other words, though some jobs were lost to outsourcing, most were lost to automation.
Phenomenal Gains in Manufacturing Productivity

Today, the US (alongside most developed nations) has a primarily service based economy. Very few Americans are employed in agriculture.
Employment in Agriculture - Our World in Data

 

[RabidAlpaca]

It is unbelievably stupid to try to argue that the past can predict the future. Technology does not have to create as many jobs as it eliminates. You're taking individual inventions like a coal digging machine that replaced coal miners and saying all displaced workers in every sector can just move to another sector! The difference here is all sectors are being made more efficient and increasing automation. We continuously need less and less human workers to produce the same number of things. If every sector is increasing in efficiency there is no place for displaced workers to go.

If for instance in 5 years self-driving trucks are brought in the market and truck driver is the most populous job in America, where do the millions of truck drivers go? Who's is going to pay to retrain them and as what? Are you going to retrain 50 year old truck drivers to be electrical engineers? What branch has millions of job openings for these people to fill, especially when those branches also need less and less human workers for equal output?

Yes, this really is a tremendous problem and your hilariously simplified view of our economy isn't accurate and isn't applicable to a highly automated future. The only long term solution is a UBI, as we can not continue to couple someone's ability to live to their ability to find a job in a market that has many more people than jobs.

 

[ocean515]

It is unbelievably stupid to try to argue that the past can predict the future. Technology does not have to create as many jobs as it eliminates. You're taking individual inventions like a coal digging machine that replaced coal miners and saying all displaced workers in every sector can just move to another sector! The difference here is all sectors are being made more efficient and increasing automation. We continuously need less and less human workers to produce the same number of things. If every sector is increasing in efficiency there is no place for displaced workers to go.

If for instance in 5 years self-driving trucks are brought in the market and truck driver is the most populous job in America, where do the millions of truck drivers go? Who's is going to pay to retrain them and as what? Are you going to retrain 50 year old truck drivers to be electrical engineers? What branch has millions of job openings for these people to fill, especially when those branches also need less and less human workers for equal output?

Yes, this really is a tremendous problem and your hilariously simplified view of our economy isn't accurate and isn't applicable to a highly automated future. The only long term solution is a UBI, as we can not continue to couple someone's ability to live to their ability to find a job in a market that has many more people than jobs.

Interesting opinion.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Interesting opinion.

It's not an opinion. ALL sectors of our economy are using technology to become more efficient and ALL of these sectors require less and less human workers to achieve the same output. This is a fact.

There's no market mechanism to magically create jobs just because people need them to live.

 

[ocean515]

It's not an opinion. ALL sectors of our economy are using technology to become more efficient and ALL of these sectors require less and less human workers to achieve the same output. This is a fact.

There's no market mechanism to magically create jobs just because people need them to live.

Humans have become more efficient ever since they evolved. Hasn't caused humans to go extinct.

There are multitudes of market mechanisms to create jobs no matter what the environment. I have no idea where you got the idea there weren't.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Humans have become more efficient ever since they evolved. Hasn't caused humans to go extinct.

There are multitudes of market mechanisms to create jobs no matter what the environment. I have no idea where you got the idea there weren't.

Jobs are created from demand, not from the need of workers to work to live. If 1 million highly efficient workers can supply the world with its goods and services, there is no mechanism to create 7 billion other unnecessary jobs.

What is your plan for those millions of truck drivers? How will you retrain them and to what? According to you, more jobs will just magically appear and they'll hop right over.

 

[ocean515]

Jobs are created from demand, not from the need of workers to work to live. If 1 million highly efficient workers can supply the world with its goods and services, there is no mechanism to create 7 billion other unnecessary jobs.

What is your plan for those millions of truck drivers? How will you retrain them and to what? According to you, more jobs will just magically appear and they'll hop right over.

First, you're just throwing out numbers and opinion. Very difficult to have a what if conversation when you do that.

People move on to different jobs. New technology brings on demand for people to interact with it.

That story has been around as long as modern man.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

First, you're just throwing out numbers and opinion. Very difficult to have a what if conversation when you do that.

People move on to different jobs. New technology brings on demand for people to interact with it.

That story has been around as long as modern man.

Ah yes, all jobs that automation replaces will just "magically" be replaced with the exact same number of jobs by some mechanism you can't describe or define. All the millions of truck drivers will just send themselves to night schools to become programmers and technicians. :lamo Millions of self-driving truck engineer jobs will appear for them to fill.

 

[ocean515]

Ah yes, all jobs that automation replaces will just "magically" be replaced with the exact same number of jobs by some mechanism you can't describe or define. All the millions of truck drivers will just send themselves to night schools to become programmers and technicians. :lamo Millions of self-driving truck engineer jobs will appear for them to fill.

I can describe and define it. I'm just matching your lack of detail with my own. Why work any harder than you are?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I can describe and define it. I'm just matching your lack of detail with my own. Why work any harder than you are?

What lack of detail? I'm stating the obvious fact that there is no mechanism ensuring that technology will create just as many jobs as it eliminates and that there's no mechanism ensuring there's enough quality jobs for everyone to live on. If you think there is, go ahead and lay it out for us. The person making the positive claim that thing X exists is the one who has to prove it.

The burden of proof is higher for the person claiming there are unicorns on Saturn than for the person who says we have no evidence to suggest there is.

 

[manofknowledge]

The next generation will be employed cleaning up the refuse of this generation and trying to make the world livable again. It's a noble calling.

 

[ElChupacabra]

It is unbelievably stupid to try to argue that the past can predict the future. Technology does not have to create as many jobs as it eliminates. You're taking individual inventions like a coal digging machine that replaced coal miners and saying all displaced workers in every sector can just move to another sector! The difference here is all sectors are being made more efficient and increasing automation. We continuously need less and less human workers to produce the same number of things. If every sector is increasing in efficiency there is no place for displaced workers to go.

If for instance in 5 years self-driving trucks are brought in the market and truck driver is the most populous job in America, where do the millions of truck drivers go? Who's is going to pay to retrain them and as what? Are you going to retrain 50 year old truck drivers to be electrical engineers? What branch has millions of job openings for these people to fill, especially when those branches also need less and less human workers for equal output?

Yes, this really is a tremendous problem and your hilariously simplified view of our economy isn't accurate and isn't applicable to a highly automated future. The only long term solution is a UBI, as we can not continue to couple someone's ability to live to their ability to find a job in a market that has many more people than jobs.

That's definitely an interesting dilemma; one compounded in countries where education is very costly. I have little doubt that the technological innovations we're experiencing will create new opportunities, but what is increasingly obvious is it requires less people due to automation of not only manual labor, but also the technical variety as well. The skills required to be successful in the technology make it hard for many coming from the manual labor sector; it's a transition which requires the financial means as well as time. I'm reminded of a statement made by the CEO of a company I worked for once made: "Do more with less". This trend has expanded much more from when he said it over 10 years ago, and technology is allowing us to do far more with less people.

 

[Drawdown]

It is unbelievably stupid to try to argue that the past can predict the future. Technology does not have to create as many jobs as it eliminates. You're taking individual inventions like a coal digging machine that replaced coal miners and saying all displaced workers in every sector can just move to another sector! The difference here is all sectors are being made more efficient and increasing automation. We continuously need less and less human workers to produce the same number of things. If every sector is increasing in efficiency there is no place for displaced workers to go.

If for instance in 5 years self-driving trucks are brought in the market and truck driver is the most populous job in America, where do the millions of truck drivers go? Who's is going to pay to retrain them and as what? Are you going to retrain 50 year old truck drivers to be electrical engineers? What branch has millions of job openings for these people to fill, especially when those branches also need less and less human workers for equal output?

Yes, this really is a tremendous problem and your hilariously simplified view of our economy isn't accurate and isn't applicable to a highly automated future. The only long term solution is a UBI, as we can not continue to couple someone's ability to live to their ability to find a job in a market that has many more people than jobs.

There is no need to produce more and more things if fewer and fewer people can afford to buy them. The UBI is a subsidy to the producers, not the consumers. It guarantees them revenue streams even after they fire their last producers.

 

[Masterhawk]

It is unbelievably stupid to try to argue that the past can predict the future. Technology does not have to create as many jobs as it eliminates. You're taking individual inventions like a coal digging machine that replaced coal miners and saying all displaced workers in every sector can just move to another sector! The difference here is all sectors are being made more efficient and increasing automation. We continuously need less and less human workers to produce the same number of things. If every sector is increasing in efficiency there is no place for displaced workers to go.

If for instance in 5 years self-driving trucks are brought in the market and truck driver is the most populous job in America, where do the millions of truck drivers go? Who's is going to pay to retrain them and as what? Are you going to retrain 50 year old truck drivers to be electrical engineers? What branch has millions of job openings for these people to fill, especially when those branches also need less and less human workers for equal output?

Yes, this really is a tremendous problem and your hilariously simplified view of our economy isn't accurate and isn't applicable to a highly automated future. The only long term solution is a UBI, as we can not continue to couple someone's ability to live to their ability to find a job in a market that has many more people than jobs.

If looking at the past doesn't convince you, perhaps we can look into more recent history. When ATMs first came about, there was the concern that they would put bank tellers out of work. Obviously, that didn't happen. Likewise, it may be the case that jobs become partially automated rather than fully automated. Also, not every sector will be affected equally. From the looks of things, automation will primarily affect repetitive jobs.

You might have read studies which suggest that a large percentage of jobs can be automated (or a news article reporting on it). Just because it can be automated doesn't mean that it will be automated. There are inherent upfront costs to automating a workplace. Furthermore, machines do wear out over time and need to be repaired or replaced. In other words, even if a job can be replaced by a robot, that doesn't make it practical.

 

[csbrown28]

It's not an opinion. ALL sectors of our economy are using technology to become more efficient and ALL of these sectors require less and less human workers to achieve the same output. This is a fact.

There's no market mechanism to magically create jobs just because people need them to live.

Moreover, unlike the past where there were entirely new markets to exploit, that is no longer the case, at least at the scale it's been possible in the past.

 

[imagep]

Humans have become more efficient ever since they evolved. Hasn't caused humans to go extinct.

There are multitudes of market mechanisms to create jobs no matter what the environment. I have no idea where you got the idea there weren't.

Technology didn't change much until the industrial revolution less than two hundred years ago. Even then, the changes were very slow compared to the rate of change today. Every day we have innovation and with ever subsequent day that innovation increases faster.

Also, most of the things we desire most we have already achieved. Like rapid transportation, instant communication, and creature comforts such as indoor plumbing and HCVA. There may very well be a point that demand does not increase as fast as our production capability, which will eventually result in there not being enough need for human labor for every family to have at least one living wage job.

 

[imagep]

If looking at the past doesn't convince you, perhaps we can look into more recent history. When ATMs first came about, there was the concern that they would put bank tellers out of work. Obviously, that didn't happen. Likewise, it may be the case that jobs become partially automated rather than fully automated. Also, not every sector will be affected equally. From the looks of things, automation will primarily affect repetitive jobs.

You might have read studies which suggest that a large percentage of jobs can be automated (or a news article reporting on it). Just because it can be automated doesn't mean that it will be automated. There are inherent upfront costs to automating a workplace. Furthermore, machines do wear out over time and need to be repaired or replaced. In other words, even if a job can be replaced by a robot, that doesn't make it practical.

My wife's car sends her a text when it is time for an oil change, or any regular maintenance or at the first sign of maintenance issues. It likely won't be long before robots are fixing robots, and robots are building robots. The less human labor which is involved in a process, the less that process costs. I have equipment in my business which is modular, we literally just pull the old module out of the machine and slide a new module in. The machine itself diagnoses problems and even orders the parts.

We are also moving toward more "virtual" products, such as the virtual tickets we may receive online for an event. The more virtual products we use, the less physically manufactured products we need.

 

[imagep]

During the 20th century the average workweek fell from 70 hours to 40. Imagine if that happens again in the 21st century - by the end of the 21st century there may only be enough need for human labor for the average person to work 10 hours a week...but if we keep the 40 hour workweek, that will result in a 75%+ unemployment rate. At that point, most families will not have a source of income.

Someone once pointed out to me that if products become less expensive due to no need for human labor to make them, we may be better off. Of course it doesn't matter how cheap products become, if we don't have any money.

 

[ocean515]

Technology didn't change much until the industrial revolution less than two hundred years ago. Even then, the changes were very slow compared to the rate of change today. Every day we have innovation and with ever subsequent day that innovation increases faster.

Also, most of the things we desire most we have already achieved. Like rapid transportation, instant communication, and creature comforts such as indoor plumbing and HCVA. There may very well be a point that demand does not increase as fast as our production capability, which will eventually result in there not being enough need for human labor for every family to have at least one living wage job.

Wow. Remarkable how much you got wrong. The industrial revolution changed the world in a very short period of time.

No point in engaging beyond that, given it would appear there is some information gaps in your understanding.

 

[Masterhawk]

My wife's car sends her a text when it is time for an oil change, or any regular maintenance or at the first sign of maintenance issues. It likely won't be long before robots are fixing robots, and robots are building robots. The less human labor which is involved in a process, the less that process costs. I have equipment in my business which is modular, we literally just pull the old module out of the machine and slide a new module in. The machine itself diagnoses problems and even orders the parts.

We are also moving toward more "virtual" products, such as the virtual tickets we may receive online for an event. The more virtual products we use, the less physically manufactured products we need.

Then the economy will focus on virtual products. Most developed countries already have a primarily service based sector.

 

[Masterhawk]

My wife's car sends her a text when it is time for an oil change, or any regular maintenance or at the first sign of maintenance issues. It likely won't be long before robots are fixing robots, and robots are building robots. The less human labor which is involved in a process, the less that process costs. I have equipment in my business which is modular, we literally just pull the old module out of the machine and slide a new module in. The machine itself diagnoses problems and even orders the parts.

We are also moving toward more "virtual" products, such as the virtual tickets we may receive online for an event. The more virtual products we use, the less physically manufactured products we need.

Robots definitely have a long ways to go before reaching the levels you are talking about. For one, while AI is good at solving the hardest of equations, they have trouble recognizing objects. They can be taught pattern recognition but adjust the image by just a little bit and it'll get it wrong (this is how captchas figure out whether you are human or not). So while a computer may beat a human at chess or be able to manufacture goods at a cheaper price than a human can, they struggle with things which we should know how to do by the time we get into kindergarten.

 

[Cynical]

Think of it this way. Despite an explosion in automation and technology there are many more jobs today than there were 100 years ago.

 

[Mithros]

My wife's car sends her a text when it is time for an oil change, or any regular maintenance or at the first sign of maintenance issues. It likely won't be long before robots are fixing robots, and robots are building robots. The less human labor which is involved in a process, the less that process costs. I have equipment in my business which is modular, we literally just pull the old module out of the machine and slide a new module in. The machine itself diagnoses problems and even orders the parts.

We are also moving toward more "virtual" products, such as the virtual tickets we may receive online for an event. The more virtual products we use, the less physically manufactured products we need.

I've been designing robotic "brains" for cutting edge autonomy systems long before VCs started dumping piles of cash onto whomever was willing to make the most ridiculous promise. So I think I've got a pretty good idea as to what's possible and where we're going.

Labor is a market. It's bound by the laws of supply and demand. Robots have to compete in that market. You have to have a positive ROI. This is the key to understanding future automation.

Just because something can be automated doesn't mean that it will ever be cost effective to automate. We've been able to build large autonomous mowers for something like 15 years. Yet as far as I know, no golf courses use autonomous mowers. The reason is purely economic. When you add in the additional cost of sensors, drive by wire control, R&D, servicing by robotic techs, monitoring by robotic operator, and increased liability you'll find that autonomous mowers are vastly more expensive than a traditional mower and a greens-keeper.

Automation, labor, and demand all exist in an equilibrium. We no longer have a dozen people with a 2nd grade education digging ditches for pennies. Instead we use heavy equipment operated by a single highly skilled operator, because it's cheaper. Millions of jobs have disappeared over the last century, yet unemployment is at an all time low. Automation does not reduce the number of jobs, it replaces low skilled low wage jobs with high skilled high wage jobs subject to the laws of supply and demand.

They key is the education and skill of the workforce. If we do a good job with education and training then we'll have lots of good well paying jobs where workers augment their efforts with advanced autonomy. If we don't do a good job educating and training then we'll have lots of poorly paying jobs where workers do menial work. People will only train and educate themselves so long as it increases their salary. And further education will only allow them to increase their salary to the extent that current technology requires them. It's an equilibrium.

In short: Advanced automation gives workers additional opportunities to increase their salaries through additional education and training. In contrast, a lack of education and training promotes lower salaries which lower labor costs and inhibit the adoption of new technologies.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Think of it this way. Despite an explosion in automation and technology there are many more jobs today than there were 100 years ago.

In Agriculture lots of jobs were lost, leading to mass upheaval in the countries in which technology took hold (see the US, Canada from the 30s even now with farms growing larger and larger) Luckily we were going through the mass transition to assembly lines which were able to absorb the mass numbers of low skilled people. Mexico is going through that over the last couple of decades, sending its low skilled form agricultural workers to the US. In China, it has occurred as well, with hundreds of millions leaving rural agricultural jobs to work in factories. India is likely next in that progression from high agricultural employment to mass factory work.

Today, the people replaced by technology and automation will have to find some other low skill job to replace what they do currently. If and when self driving cars, drone delivery come onto the market, jobs will need to be found for the millions of drivers who could be out of a job. Those jobs will likely have to require low skill both physically and educationally. The factories are not likely going to require much low skill employees's as industrial robots will become more and more common. Even fast food and groceries are replacing workers with automation.

People will have to compete with automation, and that could very well mean, a large reduction in standards of livings for millions of people in the US, Canada, and Western Europe (for the most part)

 

[Helix]

Ah yes, all jobs that automation replaces will just "magically" be replaced with the exact same number of jobs by some mechanism you can't describe or define. All the millions of truck drivers will just send themselves to night schools to become programmers and technicians. :lamo Millions of self-driving truck engineer jobs will appear for them to fill.

we'll just sell them all bootstraps (at a large profit) to pull themselves up by! the five richest old guys who have most of the money will still be ok, and that's all we need for a great economy.