Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

robotenomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 119 posts

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#51

Post by resu_nimda »

Nadya wrote: post #47
resu_nimda wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the assertions are that ridiculous. Look at all the automation that we've already developed. "In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.[16] As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture." Does anyone today feel as though we've lost half of our jobs to mechanized farming? Not really, it allowed other industries like entertainment…

>Does anyone today feel as though we've lost half of our jobs to mechanized farming, those jobs were "destroyed?" Not really, it allowed other industries like entertainment to flourish. Now that less of us have to do X, we can do more Y. I think it's absolutely a valid point to say "job loss will be slow enough that people will be able to adapt." Someone else phrased it best, I read it from an HN user but they may ha…

The underlying point is that not everyone needs a job. "Everyone has a job" is not an important fundamental requirement of functioning society. Everyone needs food, water, and shelter. In the early days, everyone needed a job because that's what it took to provide those basic needs. As we develop automation that allows those things to be provided to more people with less human labor, we shouldn't say "oh shit, we're running out of jobs, and people need jobs!" We should say, "how can we run a society where less human labor is necessary?"

What happens when this market is over-saturated because it is the only job left for large parts of the population?

I don't know, what happens? We've reached the endgame, we've fully automated all of the work required to keep people's needs taken care of, but we have some sort of problem because not everyone has a "job"? It's like some kind of dark comedy..."let's break all these robots that are growing food and building houses for us, we need jobs god dammit!" We just need to get away from the idea that "having a job" is a necessary goal in and of itself.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#52

Post by internaut »

rhino369 wrote: post #20
Animats wrote: post #9

Actual OECD study: [1] The study says that, for the US, 9% of people are at "high risk" of automated out of a job. (That probably means "replaceable right now".) But 38% of people are potentially replaceable. There's an assumption in the OECD report that the entire job of a human must be replaced. But that's not how automation works. We're seeing this in the more advanced law firms. What used to take a senior attorne…

One for one replacement is a flaw, but also it doesn't take into account that efficiency often times leads to more work being done. Like accountants. Excel and other software resolved a ton of their work. You didn't see a collapse in the number accountants. They just crunch more numbers, do more analysis. uber made taxi's more efficient and I now ride in one 10X as often. >We're seeing this in the more advanced law f…

It's ok Mr Rhino.

I come here primarily for the rants :-)

You learn interesting things and it sparks ideas.

Rant on Mr Rhino!

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#53

Post by zaroth »

pasquinelli wrote: post #32
rhino369 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like 70% of Americans worked in agriculture in 1850, and like 5% did in 1950 (many of whom were probably migrant workers from Mexico). We've gone through radical change before.

how it goes down is important though. if automation follows after labor begins to move to something else then that's one thing, but the reverse, automation putting people out of work, mean there might not be anything for them to realistically move to.

A booming business in automation and robot repair.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#54

Post by gozur88 »

Zigurd wrote: post #50
Grishnakh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No matter how much we automate there will always be work for people to do. The more important question is how equitably they'll be compensated for that work and whether or not our education system is adequate for the world as it exists. And if it isn't, then those people who've been automated out of a job will find something to do, such as crime.

I think I finally get why libertarians have a boner, so to speak, for legalizing prostitution. That's the ultimate expression of adding elasticity to the labor market, and vastly more people could be participating in that market than do now. It makes such claims about there being infinite work to do ever so much more believable.

No, you don't "get" it. Libertarians just don't think it's the state's place to decide the conditions under which consenting adults have sex.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#55

Post by Florin_Andrei »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #33

Their conclusion doesn't follow from their numbers. > Overall, we find that, on average across the 21 OECD countries, 9 % of jobs are automatable. As in, right freaking now ? Blimey, what about the next few decades, then? Not to mention that 9% is already a big number. That being said, the more automation the better. We just need something better than punishing the jobless with poverty.

That is the concern. AI and robotics keep evolving, perhaps at an exponential rate, and therefore more and more jobs will be slated for automation.

The study should be thought of as valid only short-term.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#56

Post by Florin_Andrei »

Pica_soO wrote: post #44
ionwake wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 years?

So it will happen around AI beating humans at go? (Prediction^HopeItWontHappenToMe) * Scottyfactor = Real Timeframe

Which happened earlier this year.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#57

Post by Florin_Andrei »

snowwrestler wrote: post #38
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #4

This piece is utter trash founded on baseless assumptions. >Arntz, et al. argue that the estimated share of “jobs at risk” must not be equated with actual or expected employment losses from technological advances for three reasons. So in other words, the title is false. Actual employment loss is what is at issue here. >The utilisation of new technologies is a slow process, due to economic, legal and societal hurdles,…

The hard question is not whether certain jobs will get automated out of existence--they will. The hard question is why that automation will not result in the creation of new industries, which themselves will create new jobs. This has happened throughout human history. To say that won't happen anymore is a high bar. That's why the pace of change does matter. If jobs are destroyed much faster than they are created, the…

There's only so many times you can retrain a human. Plus, the "re-trainability" rate decreases dramatically with age.

In a decade or two there will be a heck of a lot of middle-age people hopelessly outpaced by the rate of change. 10 years after that, even young people won't be able to keep up.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#58

Post by napoleond »

infogulch wrote: post #45
Pica_soO wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The factor is availability- you need three of these workers for a around the clock shift. AI does not sleep.

Ok, so you have 3 employees working 24/7 for an average of a $20k salary (33% more than minimum wage). That's $60k/year or $120k over 24 months (based on Bartweiss' ROI estimation). Do you think it's possible to deliver an automated gas pump that services 4,800 trucks per day (~1 truck every 3 minutes) for $120k? I don't.

Eventually I think it could happen. It simply requires economies of scale--the hardware is not the expensive part of an automated gas pump.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#59

Post by unabst »

We should also be asking, who owns the robots? If companies like Foxconn go robo-conn and move to 70% automation [0], that's not only a million people being fired, it's a business owning an automated labor force that doesn't employ people, yet produces goods. If we can calculate how much labor these robots do compared to humans, one solutions would be for the government to tax the fuck out of robots to protect jobs and to compensate for rising social service costs (assuming the paranoia over job growth has merit). Of course, that's also what they could have done to counter the market dumping by overseas outsourcing, but they didn't give a fuck. Much automation has also happened in US factories a while ago with bottling and food and high-tech. To the government's credit though, we survived.

---

[0] http://www.computerworld.com/article/2941272/emerging-techno...

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#60

Post by throwwit »

Bartweiss wrote: post #34
infogulch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it this way: Right now, to move one trucks' worth of cargo for one hour requires one man hour. i.e.: 1 man-hour per cargo-hour. If you have a single human that full-services 200 self-driving trucks in one day, you have: 1 man-hour per 200 cargo-hours. Sure, autonomous refueling is easier than self-driving, but self-driving trucks also makes the human relatively way cheaper to employ.

My thoughts exactly. The usual standard for automation, I believe, is 18-24 months salary - if the capital cost can be recouped in two years automation is worthwhile. For hundreds of well-paid truckers that's a relatively generous target, but automating a reliable gas pumping system just to save on one minimum-wage gas pumper looks like a much lower ROI.

Rentier economy dynamics now encroaching on human capital.
Post reply on HN