Live data from Hacker News

The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

nytimes.com

21–30 of 247 posts

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#21

I think we are destined for a future of political and social instability in the world if we continue to define labor and its compensation as we do now. We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required. The resentment of the winners (capital owners) by the losers (jobless masses) may lead to great upheaval, to be harnessed by willing politicians of short-sighte…

"We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required"

Yes we do.

The industrial revolution had far greater impact on labour than any of this mysterious AI will ever have.

The first 'machines' powered by coal etc. instantly 'unemployed' hundreds of people per unit.

Go ahead and look at the productivity/capita charts for the early 19th century - UK citizens were multiple times more productive than citizens of any other nation. It was an astonishing explosion.

Imagine how many people a single train unemployed?

Or the weaving machines that did the work of hundreds.

The impact on labour was definite, direct and measurable - unlike a lot of the 'soft' impact that today's technology has (did MS Word really unemploy 'secretaries' - or was it a host of factors?)

But what happened during the industrial revolution?

Unemployment went down, wages went up. In fact the cost of human labour rose dramatically.

The surpluses from the machines went into the economy, basically providing the foundation for the modern consumer economy.

95% of folks back then worked on farms, mines - or did manual labour/service.

The industrial revolution created the middle class: lawyers, entertainers, restaurants, mass market clothing, design etc.. Electricity created massive new industries (think of what you could not do without electricity!).

The economy has been diversifying rapidly since the start of the 19th century in the UK, and everywhere else about 50 years later.

We will continue to do this.

In 1960 there were 3 channels. In the 1990's 50. Now it's 100's + online offerings.

There were no 'pro athletes' in 1930. Now we have massive industries around pro sports.

Working/middle class people did not travel much back in the day. Now they can travel around the world.

There were no consumer electronics past the radio in 1940. Now the are zillions of devices.

In the 1920's cars were made by people - now automated assembly lines.

And FYI - for the last 25 years and for at least the next little while - China (or rather, Mexico, China, India and other low-cost places) are by far and away bigger job killers than automation.

'Automation' as we understand it is not as fast a process as we think it is and the days of 'robot replaces x people' are long gone, it's a more complex and nuanced equation.

Try this one: tell me which people you know, in which industries, have outright 'lost their jobs' due to some AI or machine? Not so many. Customer service? Possibly. Some banker analysts? Possibly. But even in the later, there are other things for them to do, and the bulk of the staff on both sides have more to fear form India than Microsoft. In fact, this is happening right now all over North America: people training dudes in India to do their jobs, after they've been told they've been outsourced ... (train your replacement if you want your severance!) ...

Also - since 1900 - the size of government has expanded dramatically. I'm not 'against government' or anything, but many gov. agencies are abhorrently inefficient. I have a distant family member who's friend, a low-level thug dealer who was recently arrested. The RCMP (Can. police) spent zillions tracking, investigating this guy. Two years of surveillance, bureaucratic justice issues, lawyers - yada yada. So it's not so nice, but we find ways to 'distribute the surpluses' of the new economy in ways, even if they are not very efficient.

The trick is to 'find things for people to do' in a manner that is reasonably efficient and fair.

Check out GDP/capita during 19th century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence#/media/File:B...

Were there was more automation, wealth exploded. (This chart does not address wages, but there are others that do :) )

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#22
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some jobs is better than no jobs, right?

Actually no. Zero jobs would be best, because then -everything- that people didn't do for their own sense of enjoyment would be automated.

One outcome would be a utopia where everyone would share equally in this new prosperity. Another would be a distopia where the prosperity only went to the factory owners.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This means that manufacturers can more easily afford to keep production in high wage economies. But this doesn't really bring jobs back, since they'll just be automated. That's not to say there aren't other benefits aside from job creation, though.

Someone has to service the machines. Also, big machines are expensive to transport, so it makes sense to make them closer to where they will be used, leading to more service jobs. There are also a lot of engineering jobs designing the hardware and software of these automated factories.

The whole point of automation is to increase benefit by increasing productivity, i.e. by either increasing the production output for the same amount of jobs, or decreasing the amount of jobs needed for the same production.

Since we already produce about everything in the amount we need (and sometimes much more than we need), there is no point in increasing production (it would not be sold, consumed), so productivity gains will translate into cost reduction, i.e. less jobs.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#24

I think we are destined for a future of political and social instability in the world if we continue to define labor and its compensation as we do now. We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required. The resentment of the winners (capital owners) by the losers (jobless masses) may lead to great upheaval, to be harnessed by willing politicians of short-sighte…

"We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required" Yes we do. The industrial revolution had far greater impact on labour than any of this mysterious AI will ever have. The first 'machines' powered by coal etc. instantly 'unemployed' hundreds of people per unit. Go ahead and look at the productivity/capita charts for the early 19th century - UK citizens were mu…

Machines took a long time to build and replace people. Software can be instantly copied.

>In 1960 there were 3 channels. In the 1990's 50. Now it's 100's + online offerings.

Exactly, we're already beyond the limits of what we can consume. There won't be jobs producing more stuff when there is no one to consume it.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#25
Self-driving cars and robots replacing factory workers are obviously just the beginning. How about computers that can program themselves? How about machines that can think and create like we do (and better)?

We approach 2017, we know climate change is a real threat, we know automation is going to be a big problem, we know we're consuming the world's resources at an alarming rate and there's 7.5 billion people on this rock...

I get the feeling the future won't be this Utopian scenario that some people are dreaming of.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#26

I think we are destined for a future of political and social instability in the world if we continue to define labor and its compensation as we do now. We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required. The resentment of the winners (capital owners) by the losers (jobless masses) may lead to great upheaval, to be harnessed by willing politicians of short-sighte…

Are you familiar with potlatch society in the old Pacific Northwest? With wealth readily available, the "big men" of a tribe (roughly chiefs, but not hereditary) competed to see how much they could give away to their neighbors and rivals; all you had to do to eat well, or make it through a bad winter, was to admit that your neighbors were led by a great and glorious chief.

This system didn't work very well at the time (it bred slavery and warlordism, and produced a lot of waste, especially towards the end, when trade goods were abundant and population was running out); but it'll become increasingly more doable as capital becomes more productive. Magnanimity is a human instinct, and people already compete on status and prestige; just persuade holders of capital that supporting the unemployed/unemployable is a good thing, make sure they get personal feel-good-ness out of it, and persuade the unemployed/unemployable not to run up the red flag, and you've probably got a stable system.

Probably. I don't think we need to worry about slavery much, but warlordism could become a serious issue. Where potlatch-like culture exists, aggressive bids for the throne (or equivalent) tend to follow; the Earl of Warwick in the War of the Roses comes to mind. Still, even warlordism has potential to be less bad than Communism (more room for ambition, better management of capital) or Fascism (you can be a minority and not die) -- the Wars of the Roses had roughly zero impact on the common people of England. (See A Farewell to Alms for a detailed discussion of how England's wars, starting from a pretty early date, avoided messing up England's people.)

This is all hypothetical, though; I'm not saying that a potlatch orientation is the only possible solution, nor even that it's necessarily a working solution at all...

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#27

I think we are destined for a future of political and social instability in the world if we continue to define labor and its compensation as we do now. We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required. The resentment of the winners (capital owners) by the losers (jobless masses) may lead to great upheaval, to be harnessed by willing politicians of short-sighte…

"We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required" Yes we do. The industrial revolution had far greater impact on labour than any of this mysterious AI will ever have. The first 'machines' powered by coal etc. instantly 'unemployed' hundreds of people per unit. Go ahead and look at the productivity/capita charts for the early 19th century - UK citizens were mu…

All good examples!

I need someone to burst my bubble from time to time.

Also, as a side note, I for one would be delighted if the future included people brewing delicious beer for one another as an important part of the economy.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#28

I think we are destined for a future of political and social instability in the world if we continue to define labor and its compensation as we do now. We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required. The resentment of the winners (capital owners) by the losers (jobless masses) may lead to great upheaval, to be harnessed by willing politicians of short-sighte…

"We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required" Yes we do. The industrial revolution had far greater impact on labour than any of this mysterious AI will ever have. The first 'machines' powered by coal etc. instantly 'unemployed' hundreds of people per unit. Go ahead and look at the productivity/capita charts for the early 19th century - UK citizens were mu…

> But what happened during the industrial revolution? Unemployment went down, wages went up. In fact the cost of human labour rose dramatically.

It should be added that wages going up and the emergence of a middle class was not a direct result of increased productivity. The labour movement had to fight hard to ensure that those productivity gains were shared with workers.

The problem we face with automation is that there is not much of a collective 'working class' to fight that fight.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#29
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required" Yes we do. The industrial revolution had far greater impact on labour than any of this mysterious AI will ever have. The first 'machines' powered by coal etc. instantly 'unemployed' hundreds of people per unit. Go ahead and look at the productivity/capita charts for the early 19th century - UK citizens were mu…

Machines took a long time to build and replace people. Software can be instantly copied. >In 1960 there were 3 channels. In the 1990's 50. Now it's 100's + online offerings. Exactly, we're already beyond the limits of what we can consume. There won't be jobs producing more stuff when there is no one to consume it.

"Exactly, we're already beyond the limits of what we can consume. "

No, because in 1960 everyone had the same thing.

Now - you get programming for your niche, which is different than that of the dude next door.

Take clothing: even in the year 2000 people did not really wear fashion. We had 'the Gap' and not much more. Everything else was expensive.

'Fast fashion' has changed the world. Young people can now afford an absurd variety in fashion. Nobody 50+ ever thought you needed a 'new pair of pants' every season. Now it's normal. Clothes are almost disposable. That's a consequence of increased productivity and adapting demand.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#30
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required" Yes we do. The industrial revolution had far greater impact on labour than any of this mysterious AI will ever have. The first 'machines' powered by coal etc. instantly 'unemployed' hundreds of people per unit. Go ahead and look at the productivity/capita charts for the early 19th century - UK citizens were mu…

> But what happened during the industrial revolution? Unemployment went down, wages went up. In fact the cost of human labour rose dramatically. It should be added that wages going up and the emergence of a middle class was not a direct result of increased productivity. The labour movement had to fight hard to ensure that those productivity gains were shared with workers. The problem we face with automation is that t…

"It should be added that wages going up and the emergence of a middle class was not a direct result of increased productivity. "

I fully agree that the labour movement was essential.

BUT - wages did definitely rise far before labour got going - and wages could not rise as they did without underlying productivity gains.

But yes - the labour movement was essential.

Post reply on HN