Will robots steal our jobs?

[psionl0]

This has been the case for hundreds of years.

It is not the case any more. It is no longer a case of a few saddle makers giving way to automotive workers. ALL jobs are under threat.

 

[quadraginta]

This has been the case for hundreds of years. New industry technological advancements have gone hand in hand with lower unemployment rates. While demand and efficiency has shifted jobs to other fields, that is an inherent function of the economic affect of supply and demand.

For (maybe not quite) hundreds of years we have seen the growth of a middle class, who owned an increasing percentage of the available wealth. Noticeably, in the last century or so, automation had served to boost that trend, with new production techniques increasing the opportunities for new jobs that paid decently.

For the last couple of decades (at least) that share has been diminishing, with new advances in production due to automation serving largely to help shift the concentration of wealth into a smaller and smaller percentage of a fortunate few at the top.

What factors do you specifically see now that would change that trend?

What factors do you specifically see now that would change that trend?

 

[JJM 777]

The "technology will always create new jobs" mantra is constantly repeated like an article of faith.

New circumstances will probably always create new tasks to do. The total amount of necessary human tasks might be on the decline, though. In that sense, I am ready to swim against the flow and believe that robotization and artificial intelligence will reduce the amount of human work that is necessary on and off the planet.

By the time it has rendered the average person obsolete it will be too late.

Robots take tasks away from us, but do they "steal our jobs"? I joined this thread by pointing out that robotization cannot so simply make half of the population unemployed (and economically uncompensated), because humans will likely go rioting on the street and/or change the politicians and legislation in their own favour. Such as shortening the working day, without lowering the wages, as robots reduce the amount of necessary human work. Yes, I recall joining this thread by saying that the employment situation can go worse, but there is a limit how bad it can go before it will seriously threaten the peaceful coexistence of humans in modern societies.

Unlike Marx, who prophesied that Capitalists take unlimited advantage of the working class, I see that the owning class of Western world has learned its social lessons very well, they are careful not to give too many people a reason to be too dissatisfied with their lives. They know how to play the game.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Unlike Marx, who prophesied that Capitalists take unlimited advantage of the working class, I see that the owning class of Western world has learned its social lessons very well, they are careful not to give too many people a reason to be too dissatisfied with their lives. They know how to play the game.

I am curious, in view of the indisputable long term trend of wealth migration to the top ten percent and the failure of the middle eighty percents income to rise at a rate anywhere comparable to corporate earnings, what it is that gives you this rosy outlook on the benevolence of the business community.

I see very little evidence of it. In fact, it seems like the opposite is true. The captains of industry who made sure their employees were well treated and taken care of (if such a thing ever existed except in the minds of Ann Randians and eternally hopeful Libertarians) are rapidly becoming nothing more than a memory of a distant past.

The investment community, which aside from 401Ks and such marginal individual participation is largely comprised of that top ten percent, doesn't want to hear about how some fraction of their dividends, no matter how minute, can be more beneficially directed toward the actual employees of a business. All they care about is the quarterly bottom line and how much it increases their own portfolios. If the grunts aren't happy, let 'em leave. There's always someone standing in line to take their place.

This is why Republicans aren't really all that enthusiastic about low unemployment, no matter how much they talk it up on the campaign trail.

What mechanisms are there which you see counteracting this? Why is the actual, demonstrated redistribution of wealth so starkly in contrast to your optimistic beliefs?

 

[JJM 777]

What mechanisms are there which you see counteracting this?

When more than 50% of population are extremely unhappy with their lives, a democratic election will change the tide of politics, then law, then there will be redistribution of wealth. Higher income taxes will sweep the cream off the cake of robot-owners.

As long as less than 50% of population are extremely unhappy with their lives, the unhappy minorities may resort to strikes, then street riots, theoretically even civil war.

Why is the actual, demonstrated redistribution of wealth so starkly in contrast to your optimistic beliefs?

It isn't in contrast to my optimistic beliefs. While the rich are getting richer, the middle class is doing quite fine too. It doesn't matter for the middle class how wealthy the wealthy are, the only thing that matters is how acceptable their own life is.

 

[psionl0]

While the rich are getting richer, the middle class is doing quite fine too.

How is the middle class "doing quite fine too"? Is it cheaper to rent or buy property? Can they get decent jobs without gambling on getting a 6 figure degree to do so? Do they have less debt than previous generations?

Or is it that junk food and mobile phones are cheaper than they used to be?

 

[quadraginta]

When more than 50% of population are extremely unhappy with their lives, a democratic election will change the tide of politics, then law, then there will be redistribution of wealth. Higher income taxes will sweep the cream off the cake of robot-owners.

When do you foresee this happening? It doesn't look to be right around the corner.

As long as less than 50% of population are extremely unhappy with their lives, the unhappy minorities may resort to strikes, then street riots, theoretically even civil war.

Which is "quite fine" too, I suppose.

It isn't in contrast to my optimistic beliefs. While the rich are getting richer, the middle class is doing quite fine too. It doesn't matter for the middle class how wealthy the wealthy are, the only thing that matters is how acceptable their own life is.

"Quite fine" is a nebulous term.

Half a century ago my father could buy a house and let his wife stay home doing volunteer work, with a maid to come in and do the laundry, cleaning and ironing, while raising three kids and saving money for their college fund, all on the salary of an assoc. professor at a state school.

Now that same middle class needs the wages of two working adults just to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck. Home ownership is nothing but a passing dream to many, and their kids are going to have to hock themselves to predatory loans to pay for the cheapest colleges.

Maybe they are "quite fine", but they are a long way from quite as fine as they used to be.

Do you think they are "fine" enough that they don't see their relative income shrinking year by year?

 

[JJM 777]

How is the middle class "doing quite fine too"? Is it cheaper to rent or buy property? Can they get decent jobs without gambling on getting a 6 figure degree to do so? Do they have less debt than previous generations?

Or is it that junk food and mobile phones are cheaper than they used to be?

"Cheaper" or "less debt" are not necessary comparisons. I said "they are doing just fine" (and feeling just fine), and that I regard as a fact. That is also what matters politically: how people feel right here, right now. Comparisons to the past generation are irrelevant, unless people tend to wake up in the morning and compare themselves to the past generation while brushing their teeth, but they are apparently not doing so.

Personally I consider myself middle class, and I am quite happy with my material well-being, though I am indebted to some extent, but that is only figures in the bank account, what matters is what standard of living I get in the daily life. I have a nice car (nicer than the previous generations had) and a nice apartment (higher tech though smaller than the previous generations had), and I can afford to travel a lot (more than the previous generations could).

 

[GlennB]

"Cheaper" or "less debt" are not necessary comparisons. I said "they are doing just fine" (and feeling just fine), and that I regard as a fact. That is also what matters politically: how people feel right here, right now. Comparisons to the past generation are irrelevant, unless people tend to wake up in the morning and compare themselves to the past generation while brushing their teeth, but they are apparently not doing so.

Personally I consider myself middle class, and I am quite happy with my material well-being, though I am indebted to some extent, but that is only figures in the bank account, what matters is what standard of living I get in the daily life. I have a nice car (nicer than the previous generations had) and a nice apartment (higher tech though smaller than the previous generations had), and I can afford to travel a lot (more than the previous generations could).

A possible problem with your analysis is highlighted.

The recent election shock in the UK was due, to a significant extent, on a high turnout of young voters who are motivated differently; motivated by many of the factors than psion10 and others have mentioned.

 

[HoverBoarder]

It is not the case any more. It is no longer a case of a few saddle makers giving way to automotive workers. ALL jobs are under threat.

"ALL" jobs? Every job that is currently held by anyone, anywhere? Do you think that is even a little bit over the top?

There will always be jobs. No matter how advanced robots become, there will always be both a need and demand for human labor.

We are going through a pretty major transition, but most of our jobs are still going to be here. The real question is what happens after this latest economic shift.

We have gone through much larger job losses and shifts before this, and the unemployment rate has pretty consistently gone down after it. This time feels different, but if we are going to seriously plan for how to deal with the new paradigm, we have to be serious about what degree of automation will actually occur.

 

[JJM 777]

> When more than 50% of population are extremely unhappy with their lives, a democratic election will change the tide of politics, then law, then there will be redistribution of wealth. Higher income taxes will sweep the cream off the cake of robot-owners.

When do you foresee this happening? It doesn't look to be right around the corner.

I have been saying all the time that things are not going to get that bad, because the financial and political elite understands to avoid going there, they know how to play the game, and understand to keep the masses happy enough for the society to remain stable.

> As long as less than 50% of population are extremely unhappy with their lives,
the unhappy minorities may resort to strikes, then street riots, theoretically even civil war.

Which is "quite fine" too, I suppose.

Yes, the mindset of Capitalism is not to care if the poor are poor or go on strike, it is irrelevant as long as it does not seriously threaten the stability of the society.

From Europe the American society looks unfathomably cruel. How can the wealthiest nation on earth not have universal free health care, while the half poorer European countries have it? But this is how it goes, the poor are irrelevant in the Capitalist mindset.

"Quite fine" is a nebulous term.

"Quite fine" means you feel fine enough not to take any radical action to revolt against the circumstances, stay quietly at home, without going rioting or demonstrating on the street. Also during political elections "quite fine" people either bother not to vote, or vote to maintain the society as it is.

Maybe they are "quite fine", but they are a long way from quite as fine as they used to be.

Do you think they are "fine" enough that they don't see their relative income shrinking year by year?

By the definition just given above, they will be "quite fine" for a long time yet.

with a maid to come in and do the laundry, cleaning and ironing

Your father didn't care how high salary this "maid" earned, or to which college her children went. The financial elite does not care how much the children of your father earn. Deja vu?

 

[HoverBoarder]

For (maybe not quite) hundreds of years we have seen the growth of a middle class, who owned an increasing percentage of the available wealth. Noticeably, in the last century or so, automation had served to boost that trend, with new production techniques increasing the opportunities for new jobs that paid decently.

For the last couple of decades (at least) that share has been diminishing, with new advances in production due to automation serving largely to help shift the concentration of wealth into a smaller and smaller percentage of a fortunate few at the top.


What factors do you specifically see now that would change that trend?

I agree, and I don't see that changing.

In addition, when higher paying jobs are replaced with lower paying jobs, people are going to have to work more just to have enough for food and and shelter. Especially if they have a family. Increasingly the middle class are being priced out of having a family, and the people that are going to be able to afford kids and the wealthy and the welfare poor.

I think psionIO's point about the cost of housing and education is very valid in this case as well. When jobs are lost today, people are being priced out of retraining, and the high cost of housing and food pushes more people into lower paying jobs, which will hurt retail sales and cause even more unemploymnet.

The middle class will continue to decline until a universal wage is required to keep the economy from collapsing.

 

[psionl0]

I said "they are doing just fine" (and feeling just fine), and that I regard as a fact.

It takes two incomes to maintain a household today. When a stay-at-home mum is considered a luxury that only the wealthy can afford then this shows how hot the water is getting.

 

[Roboramma]

Do you think they are "fine" enough that they don't see their relative income shrinking year by year?

Isn't the question that your post at least implies is important whether or not their actual income is shrinking year by year? "Actual" being income in terms of how difficult it is to pay for the necessities of life, and thereafter how affordable luxuries are.

You certainly didn't have anything to say about how wealthy your father was relative to anyone else at the time, only how far his money could go.

 

[JJM 777]

It takes two incomes to maintain a household today. When a stay-at-home mum is considered a luxury that only the wealthy can afford then this shows how hot the water is getting.

You fail to bring tears in my eyes. And you fail to inspire people to riot on the streets. What is First World Problem in American English?

 

[jrhowell]

I have been saying all the time that things are not going to get that bad, because the financial and political elite understands to avoid going there, they know how to play the game, and understand to keep the masses happy enough for the society to remain stable.

Who specificity are you referring to here? How are they coordinating their efforts towards this end?


Added: I think that is is more likely the people in positions of wealth and power do what is in their short-term best interest and do not overly concern themselves with the big picture. I would need more evidence in order to believe that they are intelligent and organized enough to do otherwise.

In societies with multiple political parties the ones with less power have the most to gain by catering to the needs and desires of the citizens. I think that is more of a stabilizing influence than a coordinated effort of those who currently hold the most power.

 

[GlennB]

You fail to bring tears in my eyes. And you fail to inspire people to riot on the streets. What is First World Problem in American English?

But it could easily inspire the UK to elect a Corbyn government next time round, in the hope that it will put the brakes on excessive corporate profiteering and the widening wealth gap. No riots required.

 

[lomiller]

This is simply not true, and hasn't been true for awhile. Newer forms of automation are removing jobs faster than new jobs are being created from technological innovation. It is in fact different this time.

Hell, you might think that becoming a software developer would be the safe course in this new age of automation. Someone has got to write all that automation software after all. You know what my first job out of college was? Writing software that automated the creation of software for television automation systems. Instead of a few dozen software developers developing systems for many different clients, a few business analysts and a couple of software developers could simply input some parameters in that system, and it would output a mostly filled template project that just might need a tweak here and there for a particular client. And it isn't like that was state of the art software development automation.

edit: The point is that this isn't about blue-collar jobs going away. Robots are actually kind of expensive and finicky. This round of automation is about software taking over white-collar work. It isn't just coming, it is already here. What is my job right now as a software developer? Develop insurance software. Why? To reduce the need insurance companies have for underwriters, adjusters, and actuaries. When a company adopts my company's software, they can start slashing their HR costs because while humans are still needed, each individual underwriter, adjuster, and actuary can do the work of what took several of each before by leveraging the software.

You are not saying anything people haven’t said every time in the last 10000 years when newer better machines removed the need for people to perform tasks manually. Jobs are not a finite resource because demand for more/better stuff and more/better service isn’t finite. Doing a job with fewer people frees up workers to design/build/sell other things or supply other services. The more stuff and the more services available the better off everyone is.

 

[lomiller]

What exactly will humans have to offer employers if smart machines can perform all or most of their essential tasks better in the future2? In short, has the Luddite fallacy finally come true?

Oh no, what will we do if we ever reach the point where we can make everything anyone could ever want without anyone having to lift a finger! I can’t imagine the horrors of living in such a world!

 

[lomiller]

I am curious, in view of the indisputable long term trend of wealth migration to the top ten percent and the failure of the middle eighty percents income to rise at a rate anywhere comparable to corporate earnings, what it is that gives you this rosy outlook on the benevolence of the business community.

I see very little evidence of it. In fact, it seems like the opposite is true. The captains of industry who made sure their employees were well treated and taken care of (if such a thing ever existed except in the minds of Ann Randians and eternally hopeful Libertarians) are rapidly becoming nothing more than a memory of a distant past.

The investment community, which aside from 401Ks and such marginal individual participation is largely comprised of that top ten percent, doesn't want to hear about how some fraction of their dividends, no matter how minute, can be more beneficially directed toward the actual employees of a business. All they care about is the quarterly bottom line and how much it increases their own portfolios. If the grunts aren't happy, let 'em leave. There's always someone standing in line to take their place.

This is why Republicans aren't really all that enthusiastic about low unemployment, no matter how much they talk it up on the campaign trail.

What mechanisms are there which you see counteracting this? Why is the actual, demonstrated redistribution of wealth so starkly in contrast to your optimistic beliefs?

Distribution of “stuff” (goods and services) within society is an entirely different issue. It’s possible to have everyone be better off while increasing the share of goods/services that go to the wealthiest people if you grow the amount of goods/services being produced per capita. Per capital growth n the amount of goods and services being produced requires having fewer people involved with producing any individual item or service and that requires automation.

In fact, you could argue that this type of wealth distribution issue, where an inordinate amount of stuff goes to a small part of the population, can only exist in an environment where we can’t make enough than everyone can have everything they want at all times, which would be the case if machines actually replaced all jobs as some people fear.

Our current social systems and culture would be disrupted to be sure but that is neither good nor bad just different.