Robots 'will create more jobs than they displace'

[dead0man]

link-BBC

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mopsus]

Actually, humans will create more jobs, in order to keep people’s hands busy while robots do all the useful work.

[muon2]

Actually, humans will create more jobs, in order to keep people’s hands busy while robots do all the useful work.

Perhaps as described in 1954.

[DINGO Joe]

Yes, until the robots kill us all.

[Adam Griffin]

Yeah, I don't see how. I get that technology has generally been a net job-creator throughout history via displacement and the creation of demand for new services and products (and therefore new jobs), but unlike the rest of human history, said technological advancements weren't capable of providing the labor and services for all of the new forms of demand simultaneously as well. We're very close to the point that software, algorithms, machines and the like are going to be able to provide for all of the demand and even the maintenance of any new industries and niches that arise - and that makes it fundamentally different than any other point in human history.

[parochial boy]

I mean, robots probably wont make humans obsolete or lead to to everlasting unemployment. There have been other technological disruptions in the past, which seemed to threaten old ways of life forever, but eventually a sense of stability and full employment returned.

The point though, is that as automation or robots whatever, come in, it will lead to a massive disruption in a lot of people's lives as their jobs/skills etc... become obsolete - and that transition will lead to people experiencing chronic unemployment, precarity, declining living standards in the rest.

In that respect, going "oh but eventually it will create more jobs" seems a bit trite, as we are talking about a lot of people lives being changed dramatically for the worse. And either you manage that, or you have the same sorts of political and societal disruptions that happened with every other great technological leap forward.

(on top of that, the risk that automation leads to a significant subset of humanity relying permanently on precarious, low wage/low prestige/low power jobs is a huge concern even if they are in jobs created by the information age, like being a bike courriers or something)

[dead0man]

what's the alternative?

[Cory]

Jesus, whatever it takes to steer the conversation away from UBI in the future.

"Yeah, you lost your job at the plant with it's steady hours, good pay, and benefits. But look at all the new jobs at Wal-Mart and McDonalds there are for you to work at now!!111!"

[Cassandra]

Yeah, I don't see how. I get that technology has generally been a net job-creator throughout history via displacement and the creation of demand for new services and products (and therefore new jobs), but unlike the rest of human history, said technological advancements weren't capable of providing the labor and services for all of the new forms of demand simultaneously as well. We're very close to the point that software, algorithms, machines and the like are going to be able to provide for all of the demand and even the maintenance of any new industries and niches that arise - and that makes it fundamentally different than any other point in human history.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. History does not just repeat endlessly; it may rhyme, but there are major differences between the disruptive technological changes of, say, one hundred years ago and today. Resting on ones laurels and saying "it worked out last time, surely it will this time also," is foolish.

Workers, by which I mean everybody outside the capitalist class, need to organize if they want a share of this future society's wealth (much less a share of power).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not surprising. Reminds me of how in the 70s some were worried bank tellers would go obsolete once ATMs picked up. And the total number of bank teller jobs has actually INCREASED.

[DINGO Joe]

Not surprising. Reminds me of how in the 70s some were worried bank tellers would go obsolete once ATMs picked up. And the total number of bank teller jobs has actually INCREASED.

Which I can't comprehend.  As the last person in America who tries to bank in person, every time I walk into my bank these people look like the Maytag repairman.

[DINGO Joe]

It's not just automation but the pace of change that is unnerving.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From an article/podcast on why science fiction is the most important genre

https://www.wired.com/2018/09/geeks-guide-yuval-noah-harari/

[dead0man]

Yeah, I don't see how. I get that technology has generally been a net job-creator throughout history via displacement and the creation of demand for new services and products (and therefore new jobs), but unlike the rest of human history, said technological advancements weren't capable of providing the labor and services for all of the new forms of demand simultaneously as well. We're very close to the point that software, algorithms, machines and the like are going to be able to provide for all of the demand and even the maintenance of any new industries and niches that arise - and that makes it fundamentally different than any other point in human history.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. History does not just repeat endlessly; it may rhyme, but there are major differences between the disruptive technological changes of, say, one hundred years ago and today. Resting on ones laurels and saying "it worked out last time, surely it will this time also," is foolish.

more foolish than worrying the exact same way every time the chorus comes around (and it ALWAYS comes around)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

do you think "the workers" are sharing in today's wealth?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Automation and offshoring is expected to halve the jobs.

[DavidB.]

The question is why we would want this, and why we would view this as a positive development. I've really come to think none of this benefits us at all.

[dead0man]

The question is why we would want this, and why we would view this as a positive development. I've really come to think none of this benefits us at all.

what's the alternative, and how would you (en)force it?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

They didn't even name any of the jobs that will be created. My dad literally made the same argument(and likely put the same amount of thought into it).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The important thing to remember is that just because something is good on a macroeconomic scale doesn't mean there won't be victims in certain areas that need to be taken care of. Let's take one of the more pertinent sectors: driverless and electric transport replacing the human driving a car, truck or train. On a broad scale, this is great news that will boost the economy. The price of commodities will drop as they are more cheaply and efficiently brought into shelves and warehouses. Public transport in many cities could run for free (!), given the cost of fuel and salaries would be healthily cut. Pollution levels (and in the long-run, carbon emissions) would decline rapidy, leading to healthier individuals and a fall in various preventable diseases that would hurt the economy. The fall in accidents would lead to a reduced burden on emergency services and lower insurance costs (as well as a saving of lives). People will be more able to work "on the go", which would increase general productivity.



However, this will come with certain victims, like the most common job in over half of all states (above). Truckers may not have a glamorous job, but it is one of the best ways somebody with no college education can have a middle-class paycheque. Same with taxi, bus and train drivers, workers at automobile plants (remember: an electric car has vastly far fewer components and future cities will probably be too crowded and dense for many people to buy one) and so forth.

The key thing is not to resist but adapt. I think above else, the most important thing we need to invest in is adult education. Rather than simply writing off every adult without a college degree (or inventing make-work jobs a robot could easily do), you're going to need to invest in free education. We're seeing credential inflation that needs a public response, much like we have in previous years. When the governments of the 19th century realised that the workforce needed to be basically literate, they invested in primary education; the same thing needs to be done here. Use the considerable economic benefits (or future benefits) one gets from automation to ensure that adult education is vastly improved and bolstered from a few measly retraining courses. Ensure that the blow from losing jobs isn't life-ending (for example, phase out the idea of employer-provided healthcare in the US). Encourage every single person to gain a Bachelors, or even a postgraduate degree by ensuring these options in life are free for those willing to put the work in.

[parochial boy]

what's the alternative?

Seriously, I think we should rethink the way companies are owned - more co-ops and the like so that employees have a direct financial incentive with automation. Add in stronger employee protection, laws about temporary contracts and freelance work, higher taxation of assets (admittedly all things I would support anyway, but automation does calk into question some of the supposed benefits of the freedom market). I generally oppose UBI because I think it would eventually weaken labour unions/workers rights and just serve to make job precarity a permanent state of affairs

But no, we might as well try and hold back the tide as concerns trying, or even wanting to stop automation

[Mopsus]

what's the alternative, and how would you (en)force it?

I think the ideal alternative is that humanity gradually and voluntarily returns to the historical mean (the mean of the last ~300,000 years of human history) of individuals producing what they can themselves, and relying on local help to produce anything that requires group cooperation, but with the assistance of modern technology in both cases. Unfortunately I think the more likely future is that described by Crabcake, where people pursue ever-higher levels of education in the desperate hope that it will grant them security, only to degrade the value of education in the process.

[Former President tack50]

The question is why we would want this, and why we would view this as a positive development. I've really come to think none of this benefits us at all.

what's the alternative, and how would you (en)force it?

Well, I guess you could tax robots and other automation devices. However that's just a band aid at best.

I still think it can be a good idea to pay for the reeducation of people who will lose their jobs to automation though.

[dead0man]

Community College is pretty much free for poor people isn't it?  There should be lots of good career choices available there (unless the local CC sucks, but that seems unlikely).

[136or142]

If anybody wants more of a 'deep dive' into this,  this Vancouver Institute Lecture is not that old (from February 1, 2014.) It's just over 1 hour long.  William Raduchel "Will technology save or doom us."  (On Youtube as 'Technology: Friend or Foe')

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuVtSHJO-KA&t=375s


Dr. William J. Raduchel is an independent director, angel investor and strategic advisor. He was formerly a professor of economics at Harvard, and an assistant dean at Harvard and Radcliffe. He has been an executive at Ruckus Network, Sun Microsystems, AOL Time Warner, Xerox Corporation, and McGraw-Hill

[Meclazine for Israel]

"Robots 'will create more jobs than they displace'"

We should not take employment advice from economic forums. They have no accountability if their advice is wrong in ten years time.

If the Economic Forum gave bad advice for business and individuals 10 years ago, who is responsible and accountable for the monetary losses incurred?? Big fat no one.

As for employing more people, that makes no sense.

If you are a large corporation looking to reduce staffing costs, you employ automation.

But you don't employ automation to increase staff costs.

Staff are lazy, get back injuries, take too much sympathy leave and do nothing, are hard to get rid of when they are unproductive, and so on.

The general move for corporations over the last 10 years is to reduce staff where automated systems can be employed.

[dead0man]

The general move for corporations over the last 10 years is to reduce staff where automated systems can be employed.

I'm sure you meant

You must be logged in to read this quote.