Research shows every 2nd job might disappear within 2035

[ag]

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.

There is a slight logical problem in your reasoning If machines can do some of the job people do today, while people go on producing something else, it means the economy is bigger - and everything produced in that economy does belong to some human being, not to a machine. Likewise, everything that machines produce, in the end, will be consumed by humans. So, why exactly would living standards go down? A reasonable (though, probably, still wrong) argument would have involved the impact on inequality: the capital owners would grow richer relative to those with only labor to sell - but that is not the argument you are trying to make.

[ag]

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.

You are, unfortunately.

[ag]

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.

Obviously, if there is 50% unemployment and the corresponding fall in wages, any idiot, who invests much in automation of something cheap labor could do would go bankrupt, pushed out by the smart capitalist hiring human beings.

[ag]

In the world of falling fertility, I would sincerely hope that machines are available to do more things, so that humans shift to things they do better: such as, say, caring for the aged. Otherwise, quite a few of the younger folk here would not find a decent nursing home

[politicus]

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.

Obviously, if there is 50% unemployment and the corresponding fall in wages, any idiot, who invests much in automation of something cheap labor could do would go bankrupt, pushed out by the smart capitalist hiring human beings.

Firstly, this scenario with abundant cheap labour only applies with a completely free labour market, unions (and yes, they will still have some bargaining power in this scenario ) and/or politically established minimum wages will keep wages up. There will also be a pressure for nationalization of production, if wages are squeezed down to a very low level - people don't react well to their standard of living being eroded.

Secondly, and more importantly, depending on human workers is problematic. They get sick, they strike, they complain, they miss work or show up with a hangover and are generally unreliable when it comes to keeping up quality. Machines and robots can break down, but are on average far more dependable and reliable. So switching to machines or industrial robots gives great advantages to producers.

[ag]

As a condescending jerk, I have a hard time choosing where to start

Well, at least in the US the unions will not be much of a problem Of the 14.5 mln union members in the US (that is in a country with the workforce of well over 150 mln. people) about a half work in the public sector - teachers, police, firefighters, bureaucrats and the like. The private sector unionization rate is under 7% - they are increasingly irrelevant for the wage setting Minimal wages are fairly low  - and if unemployment is, indeed, staggering, there will be both the political pressure to lower them further and the de facto universal avoidance of those floors (not that I think that would ever come to ti - for a host of reasons). As for unreliability of humans - true enough, but, at least, they are a lot more reliable then machines (at least, machines cheap enough to compete with people in many occupations)   Of course, industrial production is increasingly automated - but there is so much for humans to do that does not involve imitating robots in industrial production

Now, none of this - except, perhaps, for the last point - was a serious comment (being a condescending jerk, I did not see anything serious to comment about). Ever since the wheels and the mules displaced human force in transportation (and, likely, earlier) the same argument has been  proposed repeatedly - it is not new, and it is not true.  It is, of course, getting more ridiculous in the age of declining fertility and increasing elderly population - if anything, I would worry about who´d be wiping my ass when I no longer can.

[greenforest32]

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

It's pretty exciting to think about some of the things that could be achieved with technological advances. I think the best are ones that have potential to improve peoples' standard of living. Lowering the cost of communication while making it faster. Essentially free energy for households and personal transportation. Making customization of products cheaper and more pervasive so people can design their own things instead of relying on mass-produced versions. Etc.

Imagine if we could ever get to the point of modifying the human body to make it more resilient. That would be a disaster for the medical and food industries but it would be amazing for us to eliminate that dependency and have more control over ourselves. Trillions in revenues and profits would be gone so it's easy to get why they would be opposed to things like that. You can already see a glimpse of the conflict with electric utilities and solar power or US auto dealerships and electric vehicles.

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.

Well you can look at the mass surveillance, the militarization of the police, and the treatment of the poor and see a lot of malice. Redistribution would be a huge concession from them. It could even reduce profits too if the population suddenly had a basic income that was mobile. How many people would move out of high-priced cities if they no longer needed to be there for their job? They could move to lower cost of living areas and that would be a loss to the incumbent real estate players in said cities.

[AggregateDemand]

Secondly, and more importantly, depending on human workers is problematic. They get sick, they strike, they complain, they miss work or show up with a hangover and are generally unreliable when it comes to keeping up quality. Machines and robots can break down, but are on average far more dependable and reliable. So switching to machines or industrial robots gives great advantages to producers.

The economics of machine labor are generally predicated on inherently imbalanced economic analyses, which stem from poorly-conceived public policy. Human beings are forced by the state to pay for social responsibility. They pay FICA tax, income tax, sales tax, property tax, gasoline excise, etc. These taxes provide insurance for people who can't/won't save for retirement, take care of their health, or maintain employment. We also have socialized cost structure for infrastructure, monetary system, judicial system, and defense. Machines benefit from our infrastructure, monetary system, judicial system, and defense, but they pay no tax. Furthermore, every dollar we waste in the social system, further degrades the plight of lower-middle class laborers.

What you realize is that the master welder lost his job to a robot because the company didn't have to pay direct/indirect taxes or mandates on behalf of the robot. If robot productivity were taxed (not beneficial for anyone) or if the government provided a refundable tax credit to offset onerous regulation costs for the lower-classes, the economics of automation would not skew heavily towards machines.

[Cory]

Here's what people are overlooking:

Increased automation and robotization will eventually render capitalism as we know it obsolete. The tax issues AggregateDemand brings up will be moot. The social wage will have to be instituted when permanent unemployment begins to consume 20, then 40, then 60 and more percent of the population over time.

And no, even if "everyone becomes an engineer" or something that wont really change anything. You see only a small percent of people will be required to do any work in order for the entire society to function. So it doesn't matter if everyone is super skilled, the work for them just flat-out won't exist.

[ag]

The social wage will have to be instituted when permanent unemployment begins to consume 20, then 40, then 60 and more percent of the population over time.

I think one can safely bet it will NEVER happen. No matter what technological progress means.

There are things humans can do other than pretending being robots in a factory assembly line.

[Cory]

I think one can safely bet it will NEVER happen. No matter what technological progress means.

There are things humans can do other than pretending being robots in a factory assembly line.

Things that are worth paying them for when a robot can do it better and is a better long-term investment? Things that can sustain the over economy to prevent unemployment from spiking permanently?

Sound like assumptive thinking. It's like you are just waving your hand and assuming that it will "somehow work itself out".