Research shows every 2nd job might disappear within 2035

[eric82oslo]

International research shows that as much as one in two jobs might actually disappear in just the next 20 years due to automatization, robotization and such productivity gains. Some researchers even call it things like "the second industrial revolution" or "the second machine age", thinking it's the most profound change our global economy has witnessed since the radical changes of the 1700s and 1800s.

Examples of such automatizations are already evident in several every day fields. Think of the self-service checkouts at many supermarkets in several countries (Australia and UK particularily comes to my mind from personal experience) or the fully self-driving and self-parking cars having already been developed by Google and others. It's already a huge "industry" (in the development and research stage that is) in particularily the US. Swedish auto maker Volvo has already developed its own self-driving car and they're likely to release their first model within the next few years. In China you have yet other examples. Some restaurant chains (at least one, perhaps more) have already substituted all its "floor workers" for robots. There, robots both prepare the food, as well as serve it at the table. What's even more incredible, researchers have already programmed robots who can provide diagnoses not just quicker, but even more accurately than experienced doctors. Another often mentioned example is the new age of drones. Not just drones for military purposes, but drones in fact as small as flies and the smallest of birds.

Different researchers and statisticians are coming to somewhat different conclusions about exactly how many jobs we will lose to robotization/automatization during the next 20 years:

Statisticians in Norway say: About 25%
Researchers in USA: About 47%
Researchers in Sweden: About 53%

In any case, the changes we will witness will be dramatic and all-transforming. Just think of how many of our future homes will be fully automized, where we can control basically everything away from home through the help of (a click) on internet. Everything from checking what's in your fridge to turning off and on electricity, adjusting for temperature and so much more. The so-called, and rightly much-hyped, "internet of things".




For more info on the topic in Norwegian, click here: http://e24.no/digital/fremtidens-arbeidsliv/fremtidens-arbeidsliv-halvparten-av-dagens-jobber-kan-bli-erstattet-av-maskiner-innen-20-aar/23248221

[King]

Marx predicted this.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Good paper on this here: http://www.futuretech.ox.ac.uk/sites/futuretech.ox.ac.uk/files/The_Future_of_Employment_OMS_Working_Paper_1.pdf


It is fairly daunting. I'm no Luddite, there is little reason to oppose the mechanisation of labour (as voiced by Queen Victoria in the above paper) , but it is fairly weird to consider that now-ubiquitous jobs may be as anachronistic as blacksmithing.

[King]

If you're afraid of this, you've missed the boat on why work exists. The reason we have work in society is because we have tasks  that need to be completed or we will all die without it. If there is no work that needs to be done, it isn't a travesty but a success.

[Deus Naturae]

If you're afraid of this, you've missed the boat on why work exists. The reason we have work in society is because we have tasks  that need to be completed or we will all die without it. If there is no work that needs to be done, it isn't a travesty but a success.

We wouldn't necessarily die (that depends on the task), but our living standards would go down and we wouldn't be able to produce all of the stuff that people want. Machines will never replace human labor because the list of human wants is essentially infinite. When one thing we want can be more or less fully produced by machines, we just "move down the list" and go on to the next things that still require human labor to produce.

[King]

Everybody in 2114 will be an attorney, a repairman, or an artist.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Work for much of human civilisation has been an integral part of someone's identity. You meet someone new, you ask them what they do, they respond "I'm a ________ ". A good proportion of our surnames (including my own) are a reflection of our ancestor's jobs. The whole of civilisation is built on the division of labour in the form of careers. And now we have to recognise that the idea we've cherished so long - that of "being employed in order to make a living" - is impossible to keep up.

I hope I don't sound like I'm talking garbage here, I'm slightly off.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/

[Cassius]

This, of course, is why further technological advancement in certain fields should be banned, and certain areas of current technology actually scaled back. Both are, of course, largely impossible, thus the only things that can actually stop this are a devastating pandemic or a nuclear catastrophe (or some other disastrous event). These are not very palatable, so it appears that humanity is screwed just about anyway you slice it. Either we'll be butchered by the robots, or we'll be butchered by the natural world. Ah well, there's still Heaven to look forward to.

[Foucaulf]

Predicting things like this is always a crapshoot. Look at the methodology of the paper CrabCake linked to; the researchers' idea was to identify a few skills they think machine learning/AI is hard to replicate, and then classify the "risk" of an occupation being replaced based off of how much of those skills you find in these occupations. The result is that low-prestige jobs like "craft artists", freelance therapists and nurses are at minor predicted risk of substitution, but jobs like models, referees and tour guides are.

It would be too presumptuous of me to say that referees won't be replaced by machines, ever. But economists on this matter have moved on to the more prevalent question of complementary computer aid, like when referees depend on instant replays. That does not mean referees will be replaced outright, but rather that they remain in order to interpret the scope and nature of their profession. For other jobs - where automation is possible but sounds strange - freelancing may become popular, where individuals service high-income customers.

Work for much of human civilisation has been an integral part of someone's identity. You meet someone new, you ask them what they do, they respond "I'm a ________ ". A good proportion of our surnames (including my own) are a reflection of our ancestor's jobs. The whole of civilisation is built on the division of labour in the form of careers. And now we have to recognise that the idea we've cherished so long - that of "being employed in order to make a living" - is impossible to keep up.

I'm Chinese and my last name doesn't reflect this at all. For more of human history, individuals have been struggling to survive and produce enough food to live past the winter. The people who are most scared by this computerization shift may be those who think they know about history but in fact only know a tiny sliver.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't really know how Chinese surnames work. Perhaps it's a European thing, with the ubiquitous Smith, being the obvious example (as well as Shepherd, Miller, Thatcher, Baker etc. )

"freelancing may become popular, where individuals service high-income customers"

That's what I'm thinking. I doubt high-end elite restaurants in London will replace their servers with robots, but the local cheapo chain restaurant where I do part-time work would probably replace me and most of its staff if it could. The elite will still be chauffeured by human drivers; but public transport drivers and cargo movers will probably be gone. The supply of jobs that need doing are drying up, and what remains is becoming so specialised and technological that not everyone really has the capacity to do them. It's especially clear that part-time non-training-intensive work will be worst hit.

That isn't to say we reject progress a la Cassius. But instead the government should find a way to soften the blow.

(I do agree some of the jobs listed in the paper were sort of fishy)

[H. Ross Peron]

This, of course, is why further technological advancement in certain fields should be banned, and certain areas of current technology actually scaled back. Both are, of course, largely impossible, thus the only things that can actually stop this are a devastating pandemic or a nuclear catastrophe (or some other disastrous event). These are not very palatable, so it appears that humanity is screwed just about anyway you slice it. Either we'll be butchered by the robots, or we'll be butchered by the natural world. Ah well, there's still Heaven to look forward to.

Wouldn't it be preferable to implement policies such as an earlier retirement age rather than luddism? 

[DC Al Fine]

These predictions are usually overblown, but the general idea is correct. Hopefully policy makers come up with universal income so we can avoid the same issues we had in the industrial revolution.

[Foucaulf]

I don't really know how Chinese surnames work. Perhaps it's a European thing, with the ubiquitous Smith, being the obvious example (as well as Shepherd, Miller, Thatcher, Baker etc. )

"freelancing may become popular, where individuals service high-income customers"

That's what I'm thinking. I doubt high-end elite restaurants in London will replace their servers with robots, but the local cheapo chain restaurant where I do part-time work would probably replace me and most of its staff if it could. The elite will still be chauffeured by human drivers; but public transport drivers and cargo movers will probably be gone. The supply of jobs that need doing are drying up, and what remains is becoming so specialised and technological that not everyone really has the capacity to do them. It's especially clear that part-time non-training-intensive work will be worst hit.

That isn't to say we reject progress a la Cassius. But instead the government should find a way to soften the blow.

(I do agree some of the jobs listed in the paper were sort of fishy)

I broadly agree with what you say there (though it is a notable puzzle why it has taken so long for chains to automate any of its labour). The real problem for me is that those whose jobs are made redundant will take the time to borrow funds and try to create something on their own, but find out that no one values their goods that much. I'm thinking of people who are better artists than fry cooks, but can't earn a living doing the former and can't find a job doing the latter.

The state cannot simply "soften the blow" and pray people will be matched up to a new job sometime soon. There has to be directed action which is more drastic.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you're afraid of this, you've missed the boat on why work exists. The reason we have work in society is because we have tasks  that need to be completed or we will all die without it. If there is no work that needs to be done, it isn't a travesty but a success.

Without massive socialism, this kind of reduction in jobs would be an epic travesty.

[Cassius]

This, of course, is why further technological advancement in certain fields should be banned, and certain areas of current technology actually scaled back. Both are, of course, largely impossible, thus the only things that can actually stop this are a devastating pandemic or a nuclear catastrophe (or some other disastrous event). These are not very palatable, so it appears that humanity is screwed just about anyway you slice it. Either we'll be butchered by the robots, or we'll be butchered by the natural world. Ah well, there's still Heaven to look forward to.

Wouldn't it be preferable to implement policies such as an earlier retirement age rather than luddism? 

Maybe, but, on the other hand, that assumes that such things as a 'retirement age' or an 'income' won't be swept aside by technological development. Of course, Luddism, as an ideology, cannot work. The only way that it could ever be made to work was if there was a sophisticated, powerful, international government which had the power to block further technological development. Of course, that would be in conflict with its Luddite ideology, since such an organisation would obviously have to be very sophisticated technologically. Anyway, such an institution could never arise, and indeed its rise would be very unwelcome.

Another reason why Luddism cannot work is because, as my first objection hints at, it would require universal global adherence by every nation, which obviously isn't going to work. Take, for example, the Chinese Empire, or the Tokugawa Shogunate, both of which attempted to prevent the spread of western technologies to their respective countries (not neccessarily because their rulers were Luddites per se, but because these technologies had the potential to threaten the survival of their states). They failed, disastrously so, because, obviously, western powers could use their infinitely superior technology to force their way in. To take another, more modern, example, nuclear disarmament could be seen as a form of Luddism, and yet nobody's going to unilaterally abandon their independent nuclear deterrant, due to the risk that a rival or a rogue state would retain their's and use it as a tool for conquest or blackmail or something like that. Abandoning cutting edge technology simply puts you at risk from those have not done so.

So, you're right in the sense that Luddism is totally unworkable as an ideology; but, I would argue that attempts to ameliorate rapid technological change (and the social dislocation that it causes) are likely to fail this time, unlike on previous occasions in human history. I mean, to implement an earlier retirement age, a basic mimimum income and other such regulations requires the continued existence of the state, something which I am not entirely sure is a given, assuming that technology continues to develop as quickly as it is now.

My basic fear is that technological development will render humanity itself obsolescent. You might say 'that's pure science fiction'. Whilst it is true to say that there have been many laughable predictions of the consequences of developing technology with a mind of its own (from Skynet to I Robot), it is also true that there were many laughable predictions about the development of aircraft, or phones, or computers, and yet that did not mean that such sophisticated devices did not get developed in the end. Machines, not being human, are not constrained by our many human weaknesses. Now, if we combine that with some degree of independent thought, as we have already begun to do, I believe that that presents a very serious threat, not just to human society, but to the human race as a whole. But, as I explained earlier, there is very little that we can do about ourselves, and thus the only possible 'salvation' (although it would be an extremely depressing form of 'salvation') for us, in this life, from rapid technological development, is the 'hand of God', so to speak .

[Hamster]

If you're afraid of this, you've missed the boat on why work exists. The reason we have work in society is because we have tasks  that need to be completed or we will all die without it. If there is no work that needs to be done, it isn't a travesty but a success.

It should be a success. But the odds that policy makers decide not to implement some sort of redistribution scheme is non-negligible.

[DC Al Fine]

If you're afraid of this, you've missed the boat on why work exists. The reason we have work in society is because we have tasks  that need to be completed or we will all die without it. If there is no work that needs to be done, it isn't a travesty but a success.

It should be a success. But the odds that policy makers decide not to implement some sort of redistribution scheme is non-negligible.

That's true, but I wonder how they could make it stick. Masses of unemployable people would probably result in redistribution or revolution. Furthermore, is it really in the elites' best interest not to redistribute a little bit? Pensioning off the unemployed masses seems like a pretty cheap insurance policy.

[Blue3]

If we go into Post-Scarcity, money and unemployment would no longer matter.

[Deus Naturae]

If we go into Post-Scarcity, money and unemployment would no longer matter.

Barring Star Trek-style replicators or some other mechanism by which we could use superabundant resources to produce otherwise scarce ones, how would we achieve post-scarcity?

[Blue3]

Nanotechnology, fusion power, advanced AI, space mining, 3D printing, etc.

[eric82oslo]

Nanotechnology, fusion power, advanced AI, space mining, 3D printing, etc.

I agree. Not to mention the advances in health care.

[King]

Yeah, future technology is endless possibility.  It's hard to imagine there not ever being post-scarcity.

[eric82oslo]

The good news is that I'm confident that the research and development sectors of the economy will multiply their number of employees - perhaps by as much as a tenfold (over time). This will eventually become one of the biggest sectors of the economy (not just in the US, but world wide). As the oil economy will be rapidly waning (this has already started in many oil producing countries, including Norway), there will be an endless need for cleaner transportation options like electric cars and bullet trains/higher speed rails. And what will happen with airplanes when there's not enogh oil in the world to continue to feed them all? I believe the airline industry will be one of the foremost sectors of the economy to go through serious transformation over the next 50-60 years to come. What we've seen during the past 15-20 years with the introduction of low cost carriers, will pale in contrast.

[AggregateDemand]

Does anyone really think that the economics will still favor automation, if the economy sheds 50% of all jobs? It would require an act of economic cupidity for which there is no precedent.