Will robots steal our jobs?

[JJM 777]

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

Wealthy individuals and corporations keep a close relationship with their favourite politicians, including funding their election campaigns. And share their concerns to their politicians. Economic and social stability of the nation are among those concerns.

 

[psionl0]

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?

That goalpost shifting confirms that you recognize that a household can't get by on one income any more.

 

[JJM 777]

You complain about a household earning today less than they did a generation ago. I never denied that, but also don't see what political relevance that notion has.

That goalpost shifting confirms that you recognize that a household can't get by on one income any more.

Yes, I do recognize that. I have been saying all the time that the goalpost is not where you want it to be. Or anyway, the OP asks if robots will steal the jobs of most people, so most people will be dismally poor. My answer was and is that many people can become unemployed -- let me give a figure: up to 25% I would say -- but not much more than that, because then the masses (at least these 25% plus their relatives and ideological symphatizers, should get close to 50%, of which not everyone participates out of personal urgent poverty and necessity) would either vote the robot-owners out in democratic elections, or riot on the streets and threaten the stability of the society.

 

[Fizil]

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.

Only designing, building, and selling those new products and services can also be done by machines ultimately.

Now if you include the arts and sports, perhaps not so much, but even here automation has an effect, and the only reason I think artists and athletes will never be fully displaced is human preference for human made art, and humans competing in sports. I don't think an AI-based Battlebots would ever be as popular as Football played by humans.

I don't necessarily think we are heading toward disaster, but I do think people need to wrap their heads around the fact that this sort of 40-hour a week full employment model for people is going to have to eventually be discarded. Over the past half-century we have seen massive increases in productivity due to automation with no corresponding reduction in actual work. That is what won't last forever. I think sometime later in this century people are going to have to make the transition toward something like 20-hour work weeks as the new normal. The further into the future you go, the more that number is going to tend toward 0.

 

[blutoski]

Only designing, building, and selling those new products and services can also be done by machines ultimately.

This is why I was trying to clarify the OP's question. What do we mean by 'robots' - if AI is on the table, then realistically, the 'thinking' jobs will be replaced long before the 'physical manipulation' jobs.

Call centers, computer programmers, supervisors, engineers, teachers, cashiers, therapists, pathologists, marketing directors, video editors... you name it. Eventually corporations will have AIs replacing CEOs, too.

I think physical trades like carpentry and plumbing and automobile repair will survive a little bit longer than pure brainwork, but eventually the AIs will develop superior tools and that will be that.

 

[Hellbound]

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

 

[Cainkane1]

Our children's great grandchildren will have it worse than we do. When robots reach the singularity they will be able to handle the white color jobs too.

 

[jrhowell]

I think sometime later in this century people are going to have to make the transition toward something like 20-hour work weeks as the new normal. The further into the future you go, the more that number is going to tend toward 0.

I still don't see how that could happen in a capitalist economy. There would only be enough work available to keep half of the population employed full time.

Why would employers offer more than the lowest possible wage with such an over abundance of available labor? Why would they choose to divvy up the work among more employees than necessary?

It would take serious government intervention in the economy to make that work. A high minimum wage combined with a low maximum hourly weekly work week. But of course that would give manufacturers even more incentive for further automation.

 

[jrhowell]

Here is another scenario on how this could play out.

In a laborless economy the only income would be in the form of dividends from corporate ownership. Those who have the foresight and the means to purchase stock in the companies that make it through the transition would use their dividend income to purchase what they need from the various companies that provide all of the goods and services while using only minimal human labor.

In order to prevent an uprising from the disenfranchised majority the government could tax the companies to provide a subsistence income to everyone who isn't fortunate enough to have come out with an ownership stake. The government could run lean, doing away unessential services, such as compulsory education.

In order to give the majority hope, there could be a regular lottery that would boost a few fortunates into the upper class. That might be enough to prevent an organized revolt against the new system.

 

[psionl0]

You complain about a household earning today less than they did a generation ago. I never denied that, but also don't see what political relevance that notion has.

You have constantly denied that there is a problem with household incomes. This can only come from an "I'm alright" attitude. By the time you are affected, it will be too late.

Yes, I do recognize that. I have been saying all the time that the goalpost is not where you want it to be. Or anyway, the OP asks if robots will steal the jobs of most people, so most people will be dismally poor. My answer was and is that many people can become unemployed -- let me give a figure: up to 25% I would say -- but not much more than that, because then the masses (at least these 25% plus their relatives and ideological symphatizers, should get close to 50%, of which not everyone participates out of personal urgent poverty and necessity) would either vote the robot-owners out in democratic elections, or riot on the streets and threaten the stability of the society.

If unemployment suddenly jumped past 25% then yes, there will be riots.

But that is not what is happening. It is a gradual process. We are gradually getting accustomed to dwindling middle class jobs. The way that the right to housing/education is being eroded is so gradual that many people don't see a problem with it today. Eventually the cities of the US will be like the streets of Calcutta and nobody will think that this is anything but normal.

 

[JJM 777]

You have constantly denied that there is a problem with household incomes.

It is a problem for these individuals, but not for the society, nor for the wealthy elites. It is the two latter who decide, as long as the former is not populous or angry enough to become a problem for the two latter.

This can only come from an "I'm alright" attitude.

I'm alright, but still a rather far left Socialist. So far left that the dictionary of American politics doesn't have a definition for that. But my personal political inclination does not prevent me from noting how the society functions de facto.

We are gradually getting accustomed to dwindling middle class jobs. The way that the right to housing/education is being eroded is so gradual that many people don't see a problem with it today.

You repeatedly use expressions where you focus your concern on "middle class", but I fail to see the same concern for "the poorest", or for the "maid" of your father. It gives the impression of "everything would be alright if my social class is alright" attitude. But that is not very rational. For the system, the alrightness of your social class is as irrelevant as the alrightness of the poorest classes or your father's maid appears to be for you. Your rhetorics have so far not shown much concern for their alrightness, anyway.

Eventually the cities of the US will be like the streets of Calcutta and nobody will think that this is anything but normal.

Calcutta exists, and is socially stable, so it is rational to assume that the same could be replicated anywhere else too.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

You repeatedly use expressions where you focus your concern on "middle class", but I fail to see the same concern for "the poorest", or for the "maid" of your father. It gives the impression of "everything would be alright if my social class is alright" attitude. But that is not very rational. For the system, the alrightness of your social class is as irrelevant as the alrightness of the poorest classes or your father's maid appears to be for you. Your rhetorics have so far not shown much concern for their alrightness, anyway.

<snip>

Just to keep the record straight, it was my father, not psion10's.

She worked for us about 4 hours a week, at most. Considering the number of hours my father worked on an assoc. professor's salary at a state college I wouldn't be surprised if he made less per hour than we paid her. She worked for us for extra money, not a subsistence. She called it pin money.

We were not in different social strata, far from it. Our families went to the same schools, shopped at the same stores, frequented the same restaurants and bars, worshiped at the same churches, invited each other to the same parties.

I delivered her newspaper, worked as an usher at the movie theater she went to. Who was in what social class then?

The average coal miner back then (it was a coal economy where we lived) probably made more than my father. They were all union. They could afford to hire domestic help when they wanted to as well. Not full time, but we aren't talking about the kind of social structure you seem fixated on.

Don't jump to unwarranted conclusions. It's easier to ask and learn. More accurate. too.

This is part of the point you seem to be evading. The "middle class" was a much larger segment of the economy then. And the affluence was shared to a greater degree. This segment has been shrinking dramatically in only the past few decades.

The fact of wealth redistribution to the top is indisputable. Why do you think that there is no significant effect on the 90% that is not at the top? Do you see no issues with this trend?

 

[psionl0]

I'm alright, but still a rather far left Socialist.

When you have to pretend that you don't understand a simple sentence then that is a pretty clear indication that you have a bankrupt POV.

You repeatedly use expressions where you focus your concern on "middle class", but I fail to see the same concern for "the poorest", or for the "maid" of your father. It gives the impression of "everything would be alright if my social class is alright" attitude. But that is not very rational. For the system, the alrightness of your social class is as irrelevant as the alrightness of the poorest classes or your father's maid appears to be for you. Your rhetorics have so far not shown much concern for their alrightness, anyway.

Where I grew up a labourer could buy a house and feed a family on just one wage. It wasn't easy though. It took 10 years before my father could afford a telephone service and most homes only had one TV.

The bigger issue though is that it has always been possible for somebody who was willing to make the effort to improve their lot in life. With the erosion of the middle class that you seem to despise and the increasing unaffordability of higher education and housing, this is no longer a reality for many people. Parents used to have the realistic expectation that their children would have a better life than they did. The reverse is now the case.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, I do recognize that. I have been saying all the time that the goalpost is not where you want it to be. Or anyway, the OP asks if robots will steal the jobs of most people, so most people will be dismally poor. My answer was and is that many people can become unemployed -- let me give a figure: up to 25% I would say -- but not much more than that, because then the masses (at least these 25% plus their relatives and ideological symphatizers, should get close to 50%, of which not everyone participates out of personal urgent poverty and necessity) would either vote the robot-owners out in democratic elections, or riot on the streets and threaten the stability of the society.

Once the robots are able to do all the work, including military and police work, why should their owners care about riots in the streets? Just send the robot police or army to deal with the rioters.

 

[JJM 777]

The fact of wealth redistribution to the top is indisputable.

Maybe it is. Though globalization is redistributing wealth also across lower social strata, the middle class in poorest countries is getting closer to the middle class in richest countries. A lot is happening, and I don't have a full grasp of its total effect on total equality between all existing humans. Which would be a relevant indicator for me.

I make a fundamental difference between owning means of production vs. owning something for your own pleasure. Someone needs to own the means of production, and as un-Socialist as this thought may seem, distributing the money of the richest company owners to every human being equally would probably mean that people turn their property to cash in order to consume it, buy a car, take a nice holiday to Hawaii.

While Marxism sees the wealthy elite as mere useless leeches, I give them the credit of investing their wealth into productive purposes, which is not a self-evident choice. And the credit of being rather good at business management, which cannot be said of the average layman on the street.

Why do you think that there is no significant effect on the 90% that is not at the top? Do you see no issues with this trend?

The effect is statistically significant, but not yet politically relevant for stability of the society, or for continuity of the two-party hegemony in USA, etc.

 

[JJM 777]

Once the robots are able to do all the work, including military and police work, why should their owners care about riots in the streets? Just send the robot police or army to deal with the rioters.

This, combined with the capacity of NSA to see and hear everything everywhere, is indeed an Orwellian possibility, which I would like humanity to carefully plan to avoid.

It's the riots or the robots first, then. The early bird gets the worm. Winner takes it all.

 

[JJM 777]

With the erosion of the middle class that you seem to despise

My motto is: a society is morally as good as it treats its poorest members. Middle class is not ethically a relevant point of reference for me, the poorest classes are.

and the increasing unaffordability of higher education

Yep, university education is not free in USA, unlike where I live.

Parents used to have the realistic expectation that their children would have a better life than they did. The reverse is now the case.

I am not sure that this is the general mood yet. It is not my mood anyway.

 

[ahhell]

I with the crowd that says, machines have been taking our jobs for millenia and we've generally come up with other jobs and generally been better off for it. Of course, it might be different this time. What happens when they do? Do goods get so cheep that we are in essentially a post scarcity society? Probably not, we still have to pay for energy. Goods will certainly get cheaper though.

Edit, it should be pointed out, the luddites were essentially right, the machines took their jobs and they were a lot worse of for it for generations. On the other hand, their descendants are now better of for it along with everyone else. If robots start dramatically taking over more labor there will be substantial disruption to the society that will impact the folks displaced a lot more than the folks who benefit. We'll deal with it eventually and somehow and its worth trying to figure out how now rather than after the fact. We'll probably have the wrong solution though as we don't know exactly what the impact will be. We're screwed regardless.

 

[psionl0]

My motto is: a society is morally as good as it treats its poorest members. Middle class is not ethically a relevant point of reference for me, the poorest classes are.

While you are correct, the "morality" of a society is not the question here.

Even if it were, killing off all aspirations to a better lifestyle by killing off the middle class and telling the poorest members of society that they will never have the opportunity to exist on anything but handouts is not terribly moral to me.

 

[rjh01]

One of the major concerns I have is that the size of the middle class will shrink drastically. Then democracy will be under threat as it is the middle class who want it.

The poor are too worried about earning enough to buy the essentials of life to worry about democracy. If they get upset by the politicians they go and riot. The rich can bribe whoever to get what they want. The middle class are everyone who earns between those two groups.