The brave new world of robots and lost jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#81

Post by Noseshine » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 12:31 PM UTC

w8rbt wrote: post #66

"Politicians need to begin thinking boldly, now, about a world in which driverless vehicles replace most truck drivers’ jobs..." Can we replace politicians with robots?

Somebody elected them, so they are not the cause but he effect. Even a guy like Trump finds a lot of support from voters. So it seems to me ranting about politicians is like treating the skin rash when someone has measles. Sure, choice is very limited especially in winner-takes-all systems like the UK or the US, but even so, the politicians you get can then be viewed as consequence of the system, so again the secondary issue.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#82

Post by CalRobert » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 12:35 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #15

cousin_it wrote: post #6

Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…

And what does he think that having high living standard is about, other than burning resources? By his definition of efficiency, a dead planet is the most efficient.

My favourite resource is time.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#83

Post by Noseshine » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 12:36 PM UTC

zigzigzag wrote: post #61

fsloth wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I don't understand your point in the historical context. Original labour conditions in factories were horrible. The conditions did not improve through economic rationalization but because society recognized it as wrong and forced factory owners to employ better working conditions.

Working conditions for programmers though have become amazingly good without unions or government intervention, just through competition for workers. See the perk inflation in Silicon Valley in the Google years, or just wage inflation in general.

I think a big part of this is that they concentrate on younger programmers. Too many stories of older ones unable to find a new job to be anecdotal by now. The younger people are much less experienced and are eager to work and neglect family, which often they don't even have yet. I think that shifts the power quite a bit.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#84

Post by oli5679 » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 12:38 PM UTC

cousin_it wrote: post #73

oli5679 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got the 1st order effects completely right, but there would be several second-order effects that would undermine this result. (1) There would be a fall in non-skilled wages, increasing demand for non-skilled labour output. (2) The reduction in marginal costs would increase supply of the good and reduce its price. (3) The increased profits earned by the firm/robot inventor would increase demand or saving/consum…

I don't think the existence of jobs you could quickly retrain to is an eternal law of nature :-(

Definitely not, but it needs to be explicitly discussed. The previous claim seemed to have the implicit assumption that any retraining/reallocation is de-facto impossible.

Automation isn't unambiguously bad news for society at large, although you would expect it to be negative for the people being automated. The extent to which this can be mitigated by retraining/wealth transfers is an interesting question that depends as much on the country's culture and political climate as the properties of the technological advancement.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#85

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 12:41 PM UTC

tarpherder wrote: post #67

cousin_it wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think about money, that only confuses things. Think about resources instead. Imagine that the worker burns oil to survive, and the robot also burns oil to function. Now replacing the worker with the robot makes the economy burn twice as much oil for the same amount of production (assuming the worker goes on welfare). If you think in terms of money and pockets, the picture will be more complicated, but the end r…

But doesn't this rest on the assumption that a working worker uses the exact same amount of oil as a worker not working? I don't think that assumption always true. Or am I missing something?

[deleted]

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#86

Post by Noseshine » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 12:42 PM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #79

Noseshine wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcasm? Happy to be laid off? Note that I'm not for keeping people employed in useless jobs, but saying about laid-off workers that "they're much happier" is a little weird to me. It would be good if that was so, and the fact that it isn't to me is an indicator that the system does not work well, because it should be that way - but it isn't.

Well the original argument assumes that the welfare is equivalent to their salary (otherwise they'd be consuming less resources), so yes they'd probably be happier.

That assumes that all the worker cares about is money. However, not having a job has psychological consequences, and the chances for being able to switch to another job are reduced dramatically the longer one is unemployed. Humans are more concerned about their outlook than their current condition, and the outlook for the unemployed worker is worse than for the employed one.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#87

Post by cousin_it » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 12:42 PM UTC

tarpherder wrote: post #67

cousin_it wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think about money, that only confuses things. Think about resources instead. Imagine that the worker burns oil to survive, and the robot also burns oil to function. Now replacing the worker with the robot makes the economy burn twice as much oil for the same amount of production (assuming the worker goes on welfare). If you think in terms of money and pockets, the picture will be more complicated, but the end r…

But doesn't this rest on the assumption that a working worker uses the exact same amount of oil as a worker not working? I don't think that assumption always true. Or am I missing something?

I agree that the factor might be 1.5 instead of 2, or even below 1 in some cases.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#88

Post by jr94g » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 12:45 PM UTC

As time goes on the necessity of a for-use economy becomes more and more apparent. A for-profit system where human labor becomes less and less necessary is going to lead to a massive concentration of wealth and the destruction of the economic middle class.

It's time to accept that a worker planned economy is necessary. Not a government planned one, but one run by the people for all society. Personally I propose a syndicalist economy. Profit where the citizens in society don't see returns, or can only exist by living off of government assistance bodes a very grim future for all mankind.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#89

Post by sverige » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 12:46 PM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #79

Noseshine wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcasm? Happy to be laid off? Note that I'm not for keeping people employed in useless jobs, but saying about laid-off workers that "they're much happier" is a little weird to me. It would be good if that was so, and the fact that it isn't to me is an indicator that the system does not work well, because it should be that way - but it isn't.

Well the original argument assumes that the welfare is equivalent to their salary (otherwise they'd be consuming less resources), so yes they'd probably be happier.

I'm not sure that this widespread assumption on HN that most people would continue their education or pursue interesting hobbies if they had sufficient income to not work is correct. Most people would sit around the house, get high and watch the tube.

Work provides much more than the goods produced and services rendered. For many or most, it also provides a sense of identity and purpose and well-being. When there's no work available, a lot of that is replaced with negative behaviors, not some noble pursuit of improving humanity.

The unhappiness seen in low income neighborhoods isn't solely due to lack of resources. Hell, a lot of times in the U.S. people on welfare are materially better off than farmers who eked out a living during the Depression. What's at least as destructive is the sense that there's no purpose in life.

The bright future of AI, robotics, and automation providing a robust supply of material wealth, combined with UBI, will be millions of people sitting stoned or drunk in front of the tv while their children entertain themselves by hacking robot-driven trucks to make them crash into each other.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#90

Post by _yosefk » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 12:47 PM UTC

"If computers can be programmed to understand speech as well as humans do, 66 percent of jobs in finance and insurance could be replaced, the most recent report says."

If computers can be programmed to understand speech as well as humans do, probably >99% of all jobs could be replaced, 'cause it's pretty close to passing the Turing test. I'm willing to get monthly payments from anyone who wants to bet until this happens, and then pay out monthly payments after this happens till I die.